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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not shore I otter stick my nose in here! Talk about "knee high to a grasshopper", I seen a boy grow up, graduate highschool, get married, and then along comes his little daughter... Then his wife decides she likes the 18-year-old boy workin' at her store. She takes up with him and decides the best way to get rid of her husband is to file a restraining order on him. Now her husband was never violent and there was never any danger to her, but he had to leave and in moved the 18-yr-old.
Comes a court date to see if'fn the order should be put into effect. The judge calls the case and looks at the paper and puts it into effect for 1 year without even hearing anything from her husband... He's got a lawyer and is appealing it, but meanwhile, cain't see his daughter or anything! He dosen't own any firearms, and it sounds like he might not get the chance!!

Then there was this squaw with a chemical imbalance and she goes to see a "counselor"... The counselor asks, "Does yer hubby own firearms?"
"Yes."
"Well, you could just file a restraining order against him and the cops would come take his guns away from him and he would never be able to get them back!"

Hmmmmm..... Is this "counseling" or COACHING?!?!?

Anyway, that there squaw got her medication adjusted and came off the War Path. Thank goodness!

And why is it that if'fn a fella needs to get a restraining order he's charged $84.00 for it, but yet, they give them away free to women???
And why is it that when half a dozen cops jump on an ol' man and beat him bloody, they're only charged with a misdemeanor - well, they had to be charged, 'cause it was all caught on tape!
 
"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."

Yes, I know that he is a LEO. Yes, I know that he has most likely seen horrific things. Probably more than I, but I've seen my fair share of bad things, too -- even though I'm not a LEO. I still disagree with him, as you do.

"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."

Agreed. His route is the authoritarians' shortcut. It may make for temporary order in isolated cases, but in the long run it creates even more disorder, and squashes all pretense of real freedom. I understand where he's coming from -- it sounds good on the surface, but it is still as wrong as it can be. Authoritarianism is NEVER the correct route to take.

"...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."

Yes, you "get it". Freedom isn't free, and it isn't conditional. We as a society must allow potentially hazardous people to have their rights -- as long as it remains a potential and not a reality (when they must be removed from society). It is a mistake to try to create an riskless society, and certainly not worth the surrender of the rights of free citizens. The authoritarian outlook of the sort of LEO/DA/Legislator/Bureaucrat/Busybody typified by lillysdad seeks to limit risk by forcefully stripping rights from free citizens -- and that I find ABHORRENT. I maintain that if any citizen is free to be a member of society, that citizen must be accorded ALL rights of a free citizen -- with no exceptions. A free citizen is a free citizen.

"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."

Hmm -- there are some grey aspects to the world, but the inalienable rights of free citizens are not. Black and white, cut and dried. The simple outlook is the correct one. Rights are rights. Free people have them. When people are stripped of them, they are no longer free. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp, yet so many attempt to spin it otherwise. They attempt to spin it so that it seems OK to strip rights "for the good of the masses" or for "public safety" or "for the children". It is spin, nothing more. They attempt to spin it so that citizens that have some portion of their inalienable rights stripped of them are still somehow "free". It ain't so, that sort of argument is spin, nothing more. And judges/bureaucrats/legislators who put the force of law to that sort of spin are treasonous.

I say again -- treasonous. They should be fired/impeached and prosecuted as the felons they are.
 
Let me say one thing before I go any further. We disagree, and I have absolutely no issue with that. As a matter of fact, I think its great we can, and I will fight to the death to protect our right to do so. I took an oath saying I would, and I absolutely did not take that oath lightly.

Now I will go on to say that I live in Oklahoma, a pretty gun friendly state, thank GOD. Victims Protective Orders here arent very easy to get. I do not proclaim to know , or even guess, that it is the same anywhere else. From what I am reading, it is apparent it is vastly easier elsewhere. Here, a victim must have concrete evidence that physical abuse has happened, and has a strong likelihood of happening again for such an order to be issued.

Furthermore, I have never once went to a residence to seize firearms based on such an order. I have, however, placed persons with an order against them under arrest for possessing such firearms. Most of these case have been in the course of a call concerning the individual violating said order, and coming to the victim's residence in order to do them harm once again. They were carrying a gun, whos to say what would have happened.

I view Lautenberg as a tool that Law Enforcement can use in order to stop, or at least hinder, domestic violence. I am not on the wagon with those who would do a high risk building entry to seize wepons, based solely on a protective order, but I do feel that it is one more weapon in my arsenal to stop such acts.

I will once again go on record to say that I support Lautenberg, at least the way it works here. If it is being crammed down the throats of innocent individuals, then No, I am not on board.
 
"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."

Well, I understand what you are getting at, but the concept of rights and freedoms is a more fundamental one than even that. What I'm getting at, and I'm sure that the Founding Fathers understood and just sought to enumerate, is that our rights and freedoms transcend the writings. We have these rights and freedoms not because they were written down, but because we are free citizens and free citizens have them because they (the citizens, that is) are free. They existed as fundamental, inalienable rights since the beginning of time, or should I say of the sapiency of mankind. They are bestowed on us by "a higher power", which trumps the busybodies who have always sought to strip us of them -- those same sorts of busybodies who have been with us since the beginning.
 
"I view Lautenberg as a tool that Law Enforcement can use in order to stop, or at least hinder, domestic violence."

And I view Lautenberg (the legislator) as a traitor to the cause of freedom, in part because of Lautenberg (the legislation) which is a ploy to strip otherwise free citizens of their inalienable rights.

He swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, including the Second Amendment, and his legislation is a flagrant violation of that.

He and it are both abominations.
 
Golly lead and USP ya seem pretty confident that Courts will act on outright PERJURY.

Sorry your parade of horribles doenst wash

Wildfileoneagainstmeidareya:p Alaska

PS...only boredom with this whole subject and amazement at the mysogeny here (wonder why some of our more vocal females on this Board arent chiming in) precludes me from fixing up Leadcounsels somewhat erroneus description of the process....
 
The ability to get a TRO (or whatever your state calls them) is linked directly to your state code. It's much easier in some states than others. I personally think it should have much the same burden of proof as any other crime you might be charged with. But the only way to get such uniformity is to allow the Feds to dictate the process. I certainly don't want that... They have too much power already. And not all states take a TRO and automagically upgrade it to permanent status. That's usually reserved for people that have shown they will not obey the temporary order. Again, not all states are the same.

So if you live in a state where a TRO can be delivered by uncorroborated testimony or automagically upgraded to permanent, then you need to lobby your state legislatures to correct the situation. If that doesn't work, then you will need to find someone with standing to sue for due process and equal protection (14th amendment protections).

As for the lautenberg amendment itself, it serves a real purpose. Like it or not, way too many men (and yes, men are the overwhelming abusers here) seem to think they own that gal. And TRO or not, they will just as soon as kill her if they cannot have her.

Ideally, a woman will get a TRO and then get a gun and some training. Because a TRO will not prevent the abuser from harming or killing the distressed girlfriend/wife/lover/kids. And the police do not have to do anything to enforce the courts order (See Castle Rock v. Gonzales). So that ideal world isn't here.

Now I suspect that liliysdad is one of those LEO's that will try and enforce the TRO should the abuser violate the terms. And so would many other officers that I know.
 
The problem with that TRO is that if the one being restrained was basically law abiding, that person wasn't going to be a threat anyway. If that person was going to be violently inclined law breaker, that person will be anyway. Preventing him from legally obtaining a firearm doesn't really change the equation, it just hinders him, driving him to obtain one outside of normal dealership distribution -- either via a "legal" person to person transaction or by way of the black market.

Remember -- if a criminal is getting a gun in order to assault/kill another person, that criminal could care less about another 5 years or so being tacked on to his eventual sentence -- he was going to go to jail anyway. All that TRO does is limit his options, not "neuter" him. In all too many cases, that violent attacker will have what amounts to a "death wish", desiring to take out the other party no matter the cost, up to and including that person's own death -- many times resulting in a murder/suicide. There is NO way to stop such a person, short of killing them -- they will not be deterred by any PRO or TRO.

Again, the net effect is to strip the gun ownership rights from a segment of law abiding citizens while doing little to stop the real, violent criminal.
 
Leadcounsel has it a lot more right than some of you are giving credit for. What you folks really need to understand is there is a new mentality amongst the anti-gunners which is if you cannot outlaw the guns themselves then outlaw everyone possible from owning guns. The gross overuse of crimes being designated as felonies over the last few decades is just one example. Martha Stewart is a felon five times over now - remember that. Is it even remotely reasonable she should never be able to legally possess a firearm again? And I specifically say legally because any felon truly motivated to have a gun will likely get one anyway. I have a friend lives in California who is now a felon because he was mowing a couple of his neighbor's yards at $20 a pop and failed to have the requisite landscapers license. Yes, this is what cops in California spend their time doing to 'protect' society. Just for mowing some lawns - now a felon. The designation of every crime under the sun as a felony is NOT in the interest of justice but is, in fact, an attempt to easily reduce the number of folks who can legally own a gun. The more anti-gun a state is the more benign, non-violent, frankly not even serious crimes are 'felonies'. A felon might be a murderer or a rapist, or might just be some dude who mowed a lawn or two for money without realizing he needed a ridiculous license. Might be felonious grandma who was selling Avon door-to-door without a canvasseers license (another true California FELONY case), or it might be you carrying your lockback pocketknife with a blade exceeding 2-inches onto ANY school in California (private, public, juvenile, adult, accredited, unaccredited, licensed, unlicensed does not matter - ANY SCHOOL of any kind and now you are a felon).

The 'domestic violence' issue is a different side of the same coin as well. Frankly, if the 'domestic violence' was not serious enough to bring about substantial jail time (more than one year) then was it really that serious? Is ANY crime really that serious if they just let the person walk around like the rest of us in the first place? If it is serious then they need to go away for at least a few years. I do not advocate for wife-beating (or husband beating) either but that is not what 'domestic violence' is limited to by any means. A loud argument or a jilted and vindictive lover who lies can all bring domestic violence charges and convictions. Guy walks in on his wife in bed with another man and proceeds to get physically violent, even the least bit, with either of them and he can say hello to a domestic violence conviction. Wife finds out husband is cheating on her and in a confrontation he says some nasty things and she slaps him - hello DM conviction. Now I suppose some of you think it is reasonable she should just get raped sometime later rather than have a gun to defend herself. I suppose you think it is reasonable the guy who caught his wife in bed with another man should be murdered or have to sit by passively and watch his new wife and family be raped and murdered because it is just so reasonable that he never be able to have a gun again.

You better start thinking about these things a little closer because I can assure you the anti-gun folks are trying right now to figure out how to designate you as a person unacceptable to own a firearm.

California again, for example, used to have a law that stated that someone committed to a mental institution could not own a firearm for 5 years after being released and stable. Now it has been changed to not owning a firearm for life AND included new ways of being banned such as just being put in on a 72-hour psych evaluation (the famous 5150). Even if you are totally vindicated and released early and the 5150 found to be inappropriate - no more guns for you. And it is easy to get someone in on a 5150, I know, I worked for a psych hospital. Just about any cop, social worker, therapist, or medical doctor can put you in. Someone could call 911 from a payphone and say their friend John Doe at xxx Main Street has been acting suicidal lately - true or not. Guess what, John Doe is going in on a 5150 and even upon total vindication John Doe is not legally allowed to purchase or possess guns anymore in wonderful California. Of course if he does not abide by this that would be a felony. Pretty soon jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk will be felonies as well.
 
wildalaska said:
Bull flop...ya toss stuff around while angry thats violence, put your hands on someone, thats violence, scream foul names and threats, violence...
Click to expand...


Talk about your lefist liberal interpretation of "violence"... :rolleyes:


Screaming foul names... That's violence?!


If some wench gets a guy all riled up, and storms out of the room, and he wheels around (in the opposite direction of which way she went) and whales the t.v. remote control at the far wall... That's violence?!


Give us a break.


I can see where leadcounsel is coming from. He is pointing out that in some -- he didn't say all -- cases, people get caught up in the net of the way-too-broad interpretation of "domestic violence" just because the law is trying to be too protective. I have seen episodes of "COPS" where they arrested a guy just because of the 911 call his wife made, and she didn't have a mark on her, and she was begging them to NOT arrest him. The "logic" explained by the cop is that, "Many times, the woman asks that the husband not be arrested because she's afraid that it'll make him madder at her when he gets back out, and it's not that she feels he shouldn't be arrested, she's just afraid to be seen by him as responsible for him getting locked up."

So in typical brainless "zero-tolerance" (zero THINKING) style, they apply that fear to ALL D.V. call situations. It's stupid. So is defending it.


-blackmind
 
liliysdad said:
No, I dont agree with a large amount of gun legislation, but I do agree with Lautenberg.
Click to expand...


That law is an ATROCITY.

The idea that misdemeanors are now punished as though they are felonies is wrong.

The idea that THIS LAW'S PENALTIES APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO MISDEMEANOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTIONS THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE LAW'S PASSAGE IS AN ABOMINATION!


And you think this is a good piece of legislation. :barf:


-blackmind
 
How weird, WildAlaska and I agree about something.

Oh, not about the topic of the thread. But about the misogyny here. C'mon guys -- all women aren't evil, they aren't all out to get you, and women/feminists aren't the only people who vote for bad laws. And "squaw"??! That's offensive on about sixteen different levels.

***

Oddly enough, men and women are both human beings. That means both males and females are equally likely to beat each other while married, or to lie about it while divorcing. Guys don't have a corner on beating people, women don't have a corner on lying. Women are more likely to report abuse than guys are simply because no one's going to laugh at them for it, not because guys don't get beaten.

On the subject of bruises, at the dojo I've noticed that most women seem to bruise more visibly than most men -- given an equal amount of reason to bruise. One guy I know managed to break his arm (not in the dojo, on -- or rather off -- a bike) without getting any visible bruising. So I simply don't believe in "one person's bruised, the other one's not" as the primary standard for figuring who's the aggressor in a DV situation.

In a case of genuine abuse, I believe getting a TRO is a good thing, but only because they make a nice paper trail so if the abused person needs to shoot the attacker in self-defense, the legal case is straightforward and more easily settled.

But taking the guy's guns away doesn't do anything useful. If he's planning to shoot her, he'll find a way to get a gun whether it's legal to do so or not.

Like all other gun-control laws, Lautenberg is founded on a very shaky premise: that someone who is undismayed by laws against murder will nevertheless be deterred from committing murder by some other law against some lesser offense.

People who intend to commit murder simply don't worry about violating other laws along the way.

pax
 
If some wench gets a guy all riled up, and storms out of the room, and he wheels around (in the opposite direction of which way she went) and whales the t.v. remote control at the far wall... That's violence?!
Click to expand...

Wench? O my god...Im waiting for 'biatch" next

And yeah, thats violence. Thats a childrish iimature temper tantrum and if some "wench" gets ya worked up so bad ya got to toss things like a screaming uncontrollble 5 year old you shouldnt own guns


WildgrowupboysAlaska
 
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
Click to expand...
lets see, according to my "Attributing Blame for Dummies" handbook, the next group on the list to blame is Zionist Feminazis.

hmmm. thats weird.

:D
 
My wife just yelled at me 'cause I'm spending too much time on the computer. Even called me a bad name. :eek:

No guns for her!

She's soooo violent!

Fine, I'll get off the danged computer. :D
 
So whats the scope of the problem?

The allegation seems to be that falsely accused men are losing firerms access. How many and under what circumstances? Or is this one of those things that "everybody knows?"
 
The allegation seems to be that falsely accused men are losing firerms access. How many and under what circumstances? Or is this one of those things that "everybody knows?"
Click to expand...

You know no one keeps statistics on that.

From my personal experience falsely accused men are losing rights.

My little brother cannot work in any establishment which handles kids in NC where he lives, because his ex-wife reported that he molested her kids. Nevermind there was no conviction charges filed, an arrest or that he was even detained.

My brother in law was arrested and jailed for domestic voilence (not sure if he was convicted or not) when he called the police to help him. After they showed up he admitted to pushing away his literally psychotic wife to stop her from beating him. Despite her actions, breaking all the windows out of his car with a baseball bat and clawing at his face, he went to jail because my wife's crazy sister had a red mark on her neck.

My uncle is going to trial for child molestation. I'm not saying he couldn't have done it just because he's my uncle or just because he has 3 daughters who weren't mistreated, or because I know him well enough to know he did not do it. He couldn't have done it because has a specific obvious physical condition which contradicts the young girl's story.

From experience I'm led to believe that if my wife and I get into an argument, my wife's crazy sister might call the cops and report it. Of course, she'd make up one of her outlandish stories. If convicted (a crazed gun nut like me allegedly beating my cub scout den leader wife), I could be prohibited from owning guns.
 
"You know no one keeps statistics on that.

"Family Violence Statistics" Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2005, Durose et al.
Have'nt read it yet, but it's be worth a look.

"My little brother cannot work in any establishment which handles kids in NC where he lives, because his ex-wife reported that he molested her kids. Nevermind there was no conviction charges filed, an arrest or that he was even detained. "

But was the abuse substantiated? Plenty of cases of child abuse are substantiated, but no charges are filed for a number of reasons such as the child's inability to testify or lack of evidence. Lack of charges does not automatically prove innocence.

"My uncle is going to trial for child molestation. I'm not saying he couldn't have done it just because he's my uncle or just because he has 3 daughters who weren't mistreated, or because I know him well enough to know he did not do it. He couldn't have done it because has a specific obvious physical condition which contradicts the young girl's story. "

Let's see how the trial turns out. Its not the first time I've heard the "I couldnt physically do it" chestnut. Its amazing the infirmities that crop up when charges get filed.

"From experience I'm led to believe that if my wife and I get into an argument, my wife's crazy sister might call the cops and report it. Of course, she'd make up one of her outlandish stories. If convicted (a crazed gun nut like me allegedly beating my cub scout den leader wife), I could be prohibited from owning guns."

You are assuming a lot of things will cascade just the right way for this to happen. Could it happen? Sure, theoretically, but what is the likleyhood?
 
But was the abuse substantiated? Plenty of cases of child abuse are substantiated, but no charges are filed for a number of reasons such as the child's inability to testify or lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

Substantiated? It couldn't be if you didn't do it. She made the same allegations about my dad. Maybe me too. Every man she has dated has allegedly beaten her or molested her kids. This is what she invents whenever her life gets out of hand and her boyfriend/husband figures out what she's all about.

Funny how he was allegedly molesting the kids all along, but she didn't think to say anything about it until after she was caught cheating and he divorced her.

Its not the first time I've heard the "I couldnt physically do it" chestnut. Its amazing the infirmities that crop up when charges get filed.
Click to expand...

Impotent is one thing. And it's documented he has been treated for that. But a tube sticking out of your penis is a little more obvious, and no one saw that.

You are assuming a lot of things will cascade just the right way for this to happen. Could it happen? Sure, theoretically, but what is the likleyhood?
Click to expand...

Likely enough I put cameras up. I want the cops to have both sides of the story the next time the crazy sister tries to push her way into my home, then spends 20 minutes beating on my deadbolted door. That's another domestic violence conviction waiting to happen.

"Family Violence Statistics" Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2005, Durose et al.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I'll check that out. Does it contain statistics on how many were "falsely accused"?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top