"Domestic violence, restraining orders" and "gun rights"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wild,
How are either of these statements treating women as possessions? You've never been infactuated with a woman when you were young? You'd be completely calm and well behaved if you found your spouse cheating on you, "Let's all sit down around a table and discuss this..." in the heat of the moment..?

Once again, you seem to miss the obvious points... the point of this discussion, I'll spell it out for you, MEN ARE UNFAIRLY PERMANENTLY LOSING GUN RIGHTS FOR RIDICULOUS, MALICIOUS, AND UNFAIR ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE IN NO WAY RELATED TO GUN OWNERSHIP.
 
If there are no signs of violence, then there will be no VPO issued. Judges are not stupid. Cops are not stupid. We see the made up sh1t all day, and can tell the difference.

By the way, I agree with Wild, and find your complete disrespect for women nauseating. Seems to me the problem you have with this law is somewhat personal.

Me, I do not fear it because I KNOW it will never be an issue. Most men are the same way.
 
If any of you understand trial law, and let me say that I've seen my share, judges are not perfect. These trials are generally bench trials, meaning no jury. Many of these judges are liberals, women, and activists with an agenda or who tend to side with women and err on the side of caution.

We read on the news regularly about corrupt or incompetant police, DA's, and judges. Are you really ready to let one family law judge decide based on the lies or exaggerations of your vindictive spouse or girlfriend (when a relationship turns sour) decide your gun ownership rights?

For those that disbelieve the system is abused dramatically, please spend a few minutes reading the website I provided in post #1 and you'll change your tune. It's an area of law that MOST don't understand nor see it as being abused, but in reality it is.

Much like other organizations, the feminist anti-gun movement has targeted both men and guns and have gotten this legislation in the back door. Naysayers have NO IDEA how easy it is for a woman to really put you through the ringer. I've seen it several times.
 
err. okay... lets see, I must have an old copy of the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed....
Click to expand...


UNLESS

1. You are a felon
2. You get popped with misdemeanors of DV
3. You have a TRO brought against you
4. You are mentally ill, any form in the DSM
5. You have anger problems
6. You like to drink
7. Someone or a group is afraid of guns
8. You walk into a federal building
9. You go to a restaurant that serves alcohol
10. Someone puts up a sign
etc, etc, etc..

I guess our Forefathers were idiots, they forgot the ... and then the UNLESS clause of the 2nd amendment.

Stupid Forefathers, I guess that they just didn't know about felons, misdemeanors, people afraid of guns, the mentally ill, drinking/alcohol, signs, federal buildings, and TRO's (well maybe the TRO's) :rolleyes:

Geez. I think that gun owners and people that think they know the constitution is actually our worse enemies.

Wayne
 
As I said, sems to me that you are awfully invested in this issue. Most normal men have NO WORRIES. Those with jaded views of women, or those with anger management issues are right to worry, and Im glad they do.
 
Good point: Life was so simple in the days of our forefathers. They didn't have DV, bad tempers, felons, booze, or homicides...

Oh wait, fairy tale time is over. All of the above was alive and well. Our forefathers sought to provide gun rights to ALL, not the elite few...
 
Please tell me that you are honestly stating that you believe that felons should be able to own guns. That people with sever mental defects sould own guns. That wife beaters should own guns. If that is so, then I have no reason to argue my point, as your credibility went real south real fast.

Personally, I feel that ANY occasion of Domestic Violence should be a felony. Period. There is NO excuse for hitting your spouse, child, parent, or anyone else unless in defense of your safety.
 
Lili:
"most normal men don't have to worry"
Click to expand...

Have you been studying the arguments of the LEFT? That's the same argument that the left gives with regard to needing guns, CCW, machine guns, etc. I cannot believe you call yourself a gun owner believing in the 2nd Amendment. I'm ashamed at this moment!
 
Lili:
Let's stay on point regarding this post. If you want my views and the views of others on whether felons should own guns, there was a good thread a month ago.
 
Leadcounsel, I read that thread, and the crap spewed within. However, you cannot discuss this without directly correlating it with other groups of people who are denied the right to own firearms, some for good reason, some not. They are joined at the hip, and always will be.
 
Furthermore, when I said that "most normal men dont have to worry", I was referring to cahrges of domestic violence. Thats fact.

No, I dont agree with a large amount of gun legislation, but I do agree with Lautenberg. I have not, will not ever laid a hand on a family member. If I did, then I would expect to have my rights stripped, and this is the way it should be.

I am a law enforcement officer, and I se the system for all its flaws. Contrary to popular belief, this one works.
 
Please tell me that you are honestly stating that you believe that felons should be able to own guns. That people with sever mental defects sould own guns. That wife beaters should own guns.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Why, because I am a believer in the Constitution, as it stands and what it says.

liliysdad, I understand where you are coming from, but it's not what the founders created. They understood that when they created the Bill of Rights, that man and American's could abuse the freedoms that they held, but they gave back the Freedoms of even the felons of their time when they finished their sentence.

If they were so much danger to society, that's why they built the gallows and the criminal was no longer able to create havoc.

It's not our Freedoms or Rights that are the problem here, they work today just as well as they did back then, it's the gutlessness of our judicial system to order the rebuilding of the gallows.

And it's the gutlessness (or being unable) of the family members of said wife beater to take the bastard out behind the barn and knock some sense into them.

I will even jump in with both feet and say that it's because of the law, that has caused us to lose our Rights and Freedoms because old time justice has been outlawed (the taking behind the barn for example).

I firmly believe that if your Rights/Freedoms are taken from you because your crime was so heinous, then you deserve not to be breathing upon this earth.

You either have absolute freedom/rights or you have no freedom or rights.

Wayne
 
This is part and parcel of the Oprah spearheaded anti-male agenda.

An assault is an assault is an assault, and all assaults should be prosecuted with equal fervor, no matter the relationship between the parties.
 
Again, i wholly disagree. The amount of trust involved in a domestic relationship would dictate that these charges carry more weight. Again, we are all entitled to our opinions, and mine happens to side with the popular one on this one.


Trust me, that doesnt happen often.
 
Let's just say that I'm with LeadCounsel and Wayne on this one. lillysdad, you seem to be sincere, and I'm sure that your heart is in the right place and all. I know that you say what you say and believe what you believe because you feel that the established law is right. I do not. I feel that you have lost sight of the ideals of our forefathers, and the established law is far removed from those ideals as well. This is not a good thing.

We as a people (not as individuals in some cases) have lost sight of the ideals that this nation was founded on. One of those ideals is the inalienable right of free citizens to be armed. No exceptions. If a citizen is free, the citizen has the right to arm himself. What part of this is so hard to understand? If a citizen is hazardous to society, that citizen should be segregated from society -- jail, mental asylum, or execution as appropriate and as determined by due process of law. If a citizen is not, then that citizen must be FREE, and accorded all rights of a free citizen, including bearing arms.
 
Considering I can feel the heat from this thread through my screen, I'm not sure I want to weigh in on this one. But...

I have a friend who will soon be getting his own gun. (Yea! A convert!) He's divorced. He's got a heck of a temper. In our discussions, I have honestly wondered if I wanted to continue encouraging him to get a gun, considering his temper. In keeping with this thread, this guy has not, to my knowledge, ever hit a woman or had a restraining order against him.

Before his divorce, I have no doubt he and his ex had their fair share of screaming matches (I guess it happens that way when one's marriage goes Chernobyl...)

However, despite his temper and the fact that he gets loud when he argues, I don't think that gives anyone the right to keep him from owning a gun.

Some of the opinions expressed so far are exactly the tactics used by those who would take our guns away ... ALL of 'em. When "violence" is defined in terms of merely feeling threatened (yelling or throwing stuff or whatever), then we're all in trouble. Banking on that degree of subjectivity is not good for our gun rights, since our guns definitely make certain Senators from both coasts feel quite threatened. We'd all have restraining orders on us under that criteria.

I'm no legal scholar - I don't know the specifics of what a restraining order entails. But I believe firmly in "innocent until proven guilty". A restraining order doesn't necessarily prove a person has done anything wrong. That's no grounds for taking the guns away.
 
gb_in_ga ,

I would like to note that liliysdad is an LEO and has most likely seen more horrific things that we are lucky to have not seen.

I disagree with him on this issue due to he is going by what he's seen and emotion, and his anger is then projected to "damn them all, ban everyone of them from their Rights" attitude. Which is understandable but wrong.

There were no "what if's" or "should be's" built into our Rights and Freedoms, they are purly written in the intent that they wanted them to be written. As a fellow American, I very well know that Rights and Freedoms can be, are, abused. That having absolute Rights and Freedoms can be dangerous because of certain types of people, yet I will gladly allow them their rights so I don't have to give up mine.

If they prove to not deserve those rights, then all they deserve are the gallows.

I guess that many here don't understand that I do look at the world in a sort of black and white aspect with no greys.

Many here, and especially elsewhere, would feel much happier if I was voided my right of gun ownership, and my ability to get a permit to carry. They have projected their fears of "that one person that may do something" upon me and then try to get others to agree with them.

Yet, I've done nothing wrong in my over 17 years of gun ownership, but because I am against the grain of their beliefs, would feel better if I was stricken of my Rights and Freedoms.

And for those that have messed up, who are we to tell them that they are second class American's when they get out of jail/prison. Who the hell are we to judge and to look down on them. They messed up, they did their time, and now we are just going to continue to look down our noses at them.

Who gave us the power to judge others for their past.

It's funny, JSP ( Jim ), is against us because he thinks that we are paranoid, and I'm getting tired of "us" due to our new found elitism on who should or shouldn't own guns because it makes us "feel good" that they can't due to some law that we wish to be passed or has been passed.

If you can't deal with Freedom or Rights, please do us a favor and move to a country that doesn't offer either.

Wayne
 
You'd be completely calm and well behaved if you found your spouse cheating on you, "Let's all sit down around a table and discuss this..." in the heat of the moment..?
Click to expand...

yep...what am I gonna do...beat her up? yell and scream?

MEN ARE UNFAIRLY PERMANENTLY LOSING GUN RIGHTS FOR RIDICULOUS, MALICIOUS, AND UNFAIR ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE IN NO WAY RELATED TO GUN OWNERSHIP.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

hese trials are generally bench trials, meaning no jury. Many of these judges are liberals, women, and activists with an agenda or who tend to side with women and err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

BS...Ive tried hundreds of cases, jury and non jury. Ive never found a judge who wouldnt give the defendant a fair shake


WildthisisillyAlaska
 
Wild,

Give me your name and address in PM and I bet you a gun that I can get a TRO on you within 72 hours.

Oregon does recognize "gay" TRO's so it would be interesting to see if I could get one. And that would leave you without a living for abit if I can ;) .

I think that "mental abuse" should work. You don't have to actually hit now days, just verbal abuse is good enough.

This is a law that is highly abused and since you are in Alaska, maybe not so liberal as Oregon, your judges may not be like ours.

Wayne
 
USP45 is right on target... all it would literally take would be for him to show up in a courthouse, but on a show, act scared, tell the judge literally any story he wants to concoct including an intimate relationship, and I would wager a gun that he could AT LEAST get a temporary restraining order against Wild... but none of us are going to do it because that's abusing the system. Despite that, it would be very easy, even in a "set up" situation by the left.

What would that do?

1) A temporary protection/restraining order would be served on Wild at home, work, or whereever they can find him. He cannot hide forever.

2) Wild would be FORCED to comply with the law, which states that he cannot be in possession of a firearm and must turn them ALL over to the police or a dealer for safe keeping until after the hearing in about 10 days. If he is found in violation of this portion of the law, he will be prosecuted and the minimum mandatory sentence is 5, yes 5 years. The order requires Wild to not contact USP and stay a certain distance from USP or risk contempt of court.

At this point, what was his crime? Nothing!

3) If Wild values his gun rights and his liberties, he MUST hire competant counsel, which will cost several hundred to several thousand dollars to defend this frivolous civil action. He has no criminal protections, however, despite the severity of the nature of the complaint.

4) At USP's whim, he can call the cops on Wild and allege verbal or physical harassment, stalking, scary noises in the night, illegal contact, whatever. No shred of proof is necessary; all he has to do is tell a compelling story to the cops and whip up some emotion. The police have a MANDATORY investigation and arrest of Wild based on probable cause for violation of the TPO and contempt of court. That means further criminal defense fees and proceedings, and possibly months in jail.

So far, there has been no evidence other than USP's allegations.

5) At the permanency hearing, it will likely be one left wing family law judge who will err on the side of caution and grant the order. Wild has no right to a jury trial. USP will say that he and Wild had an intimate relationship which Wild did not want public and Wild threatened USP with a gun. There is nothing less than a 50/50 chance the order will be granted.

Bingo, no more guns or profession for Wild. Simple character assassination which costs USP NOTHING and Wild EVERYTHING.

Happens EVERY DAY IN AMERICA. See the website in post #1 for more information.....

This is very serious business indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top