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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If youre stressed out, and one of your stress outlets are punching a punching bag.. is that violence?

What if it's punching YOUR sofa? or a wall in YOUR house?

If your girlfriend calls the cops on you for punching your wall, nowhere near her.. no immediate threat to her, not putting her in harms way at all.... this is violence?

Shooting a paper target is violence?
I dont know about you people but shooting is one of my stress outlets.
Shooting, working out, punching the punching bag I have in my garage.
Breaking things....Yeah, breaking things, theres been a few times when I was on the edge of a breakdown, parents divorcing, problems with my girlfriend at the time, financial problems..... I would get a baseball bat or other blunt object, and bring things to the backyard and take a few swings.

Does that make me unfit for gun-ownership????

Should the old lady next door be able to get a restraining order against me? Should she have the right to ban me from owning the tools I need to protect myself? I THINK NOT!!
 
I'm frankly really disgusted at some of the "holier than thou" attitudes of some of the "perfect" and "elitists" on this board who clearly think that their way of handling problems is the only way. We have to face the fact that humans argue and fight with no permanent danger or harm to either party. Part of the problem with society is that people are not allowed to have small vents of frustration and then they 'explode' in some catastrophic "bell tower' manner. Let people handle their frustrations in a healthy manner and have their disputes and interfere when there is a REAL indication that someone will get hurt. Unfortunately, raising ones' voice in todays' pampered society is enough to get you thrown in jail, and you can thank the liberals -- which stems to a deeper problem of not being able to discipline children properly too, which is a different topic altogether.

As an example of the elitist attitude, Like Rosie Odonell, she can have armed body guards, but doesn't believe you or I should be able to own guns or protect ourselves. As the LEFT and some of the elitists here will lead you to believe, YOU are too dangerous to own guns despite no legitimate conviction. It's Bullsh1t and the same arguments that caused stupid legislation like the Brady Bill "Oh my, those guns are too scary.... they hold too many bullets...." etc.

If I want to break some of my own property, shoot targets, punch a punching bag, or beat the heck out of my TV with my baseball bat, then I have 100% right in doing that. I supposed their mentality will also dictate what I can and cannot do with my own property next! "My spouse is being violent by punching a punching bag, please arrest him/her so I can get the house, kids, bank account, and keep him/her from accessing guns and also get them thrown in jail if they so much as interfere with my life or try to see the kids or visit the house."

Owning a gun doesn't make you violent, nor does a restriction on gun ownership keep violent people from either owning a gun or being violent. It's legislation that penalized only the law abiding, and it's a terrible state of affairs.
 
If youre stressed out, and one of your stress outlets are punching a punching bag.. is that violence?.......... I would get a baseball bat or other blunt object, and bring things to the backyard and take a few swings.
Click to expand...

Theres a big diff between a stress outlet and in the midst of an argument with a loved one, pitchin a hissy and breaking things and punching walls. Ya'll walk down the street and go beat up a tree by yourself...than can be healthy..

Losing contol and gettin violent in front of someone, especially A LOVED ONE..IS NOT

Let people handle their frustrations in a healthy manner and have their disputes and interfere when there is a REAL indication that someone will get hurt.
Click to expand...

Handling frustrations in a healthy well adjusted matter does not entail tossing things around, breaking furniture, putting ones fist through a wall or a door...if ya cant control yourself AROUND OTHERS when you are at the peak of anger and frustration you shouldnt own a gun...

WildbutterfliesandflowersAlaska
 
If the LEFT and some on this board had written the 2nd Amendment:

"Gun ownership shall be strictly limited to those that we, the governing body and elite, deem entitled to own firearms. If you show, gasp, emotion, you are not entitled to own a firearm. If you like to destroy even your own property, raise your voice at someone in anger, or, heaven forbid, act in any aggressive manner, you will immediately forfeit your gun rights. If you are accused of civil disobedience, you are not allowed to own a firearm. Any accusation of any crime, for that matter, shall cause the accused to forfeit his/her gun rights. If you are convicted of a crime, forget about firearm ownership.... without due process or any difficult burden of proving that you have committed or intend to commit a gun related crime, you will be stripped of your gun rights. Further, any gun or bullets that can harm someone is outlawed. Guns shall only be used for hunting purposes and are not necessary for things such as fighting tyranny or self protection in this fantasy world of make belief and peacefulness. And if there is violence or oppression, only the elite who are perfect in their daily lives are entitled to protect ourselves with firearms. The rest of you pions shall be unarmed victims because of the alleged violations in the law, or the actual convictions that have no relevance to firearm ownership, but in our infinite wisdom we've deemed to ban gun ownership because we can and the sheep will go along with it."

Forget the fact, for a moment, that law enforcement (who we trust as a society) are regularly caught stealing, taking bribes, beating the innocent, shooting the innocent, committing "no knock" searches and shooting homeowners who are armed, and intimidating law abiding citizens... -- do THEY lose their rights to own and carry guns?

For the record I think that the majority of cops are great men and women who do difficult jobs and are underpaid. However, there are many bad ones in the system who are police for the wrong reasons.
 
Handling frustrations in a healthy well adjusted matter does not entail tossing things around, breaking furniture, putting ones fist through a wall or a door...if ya cant control yourself AROUND OTHERS when you are at the peak of anger and frustration you shouldnt own a gun...
Click to expand...

Besides being irresponsible, I think such behavior actually constitutes assault in a lot of places. Scaring people by acting out in such a way that they reasonably fear you is normally a crime, and I think throwing the remote/smashing your tv set is definitely something that would cause a reasonable lady to wonder if she were going to be next. I know I'd head for the hills if I were in a friend's house and he started bashing his tv, oven, and cabinets with a golf club.

I don't feel it should be as simple as an accusation, back to the title, to get someone's guns taken away. But if there's some sort of fact finding to support that an estranged wife or husband is behaving this way...well, at the very least, could we all agree to an automatic CCW issuance and free training certificates for the victim, regardless of what happens to joe-beats-his-tv-set's guns???
 
I'm not a huge fan of the Lautenberg amendment. That being said.....

This is a left wing "end around" attack at mostly male gun ownership in America and should be brought to everyones' attention
Click to expand...

.....you can always do a 'end around' all of the leftists and feminists who are out to get you by walking out the front door, not slamming the door while walking through it, not throwing things at the significant other, not slapping or punching her/him, but just walking until things cool off.

Just because someone starts a shouting match, it doesn't mean you have to participate.
 
Screaming, yelling, taking a ball bat to a TV, punching walls, sounds like disorderly conduct to me, and yes, you can be popped for discon in your own home if the conduct is such as to cause public alarm, ie, can be heard from the street.
 
Paraphrased:

Forget the fact, for a moment, that non-law enforcement (who we trust as a society) are regularly caught stealing, commiting extortion, beating the innocent, shooting the innocent, committing "home invasion" and shooting homeowners who are armed, and intimidating law abiding citizens...

For the record, I think the majority of civilians are great people.......However there are many bad ones in society.......
 
The difference is, NON-law-enforcement people are not given the authority to have automatic weapons, large quantities of pepper spray, or the right to carry guns in bars, airports, etc.; they are not allowed to stop others, bind them, take them into custody, lock them in the back of a car; they are not told that their word will be taken as GOSPEL in court -- any court, on any issue...

So yeah, we ARE justified in feeling that law enforcement personnel should be held to a higher standard than the rabble. But we don't kid ourselves: we know they still come from a pool of ordinary human beings. The thing is, any time they are found to transgress, it should be considered more serious when they do it than when "civilians" do it.


-blackmind
 
Seems like alot of threads, always end with...
LEO vs Civilians.

It's probably true, most DV cases are, MALE attacking FEMALE, not that FEMALE attacking MALE dont exist, it is just not as frequent (or not reported as frequently).

I just think that with any criminal accusation, that there should be proof.
If a woman or man have marks on them, sure take the suspect to jail or away from the "victim" until they can meet in court, where both parties can be heard. not just one! Isnt this what the system was put in place for?
 
Lilly:

1) The semantics of "commit" argument is nonsense. I can commit to lots of legal or illegal activities. What's your point?

2) No knocks are practiced nationwide, but that practice is fading fast. Here in Denver I remember two or three recent incidents where the police committed a "no knock" on the WRONG HOUSE! The police barged in, the owner was started and armed himself, the police shot and killed him! I don't know about you, but that's a pretty DARN big mistake!

3) Cops are sworn to uphold the Constitution which guarantees our rights, including DUE PROCESS. You might have heard about this.... I sure hope your brothers take their oath more seriously than you.


As far as the concerns about whether a person wants to "violently" destroy his property, where is it a crime to smash your own property (as long as you're not committing insurance fraud, for instance)? Why is the government getting involved if I'm punching holes in my own wall in my home? You may see this as a "safety precaution" but I see it as an intrusion into my privacy and property rights by Big Brother.

As far as violence, most of us here shoot inanimate objects with guns and many hunt or sport kill animals/rodents. If what you've described as violence is truly violence, I can think of nothing more violent than shooting guns at objects and animals. Should that also be viewed as violent and illegal?

The bottom line is that the divorce and DV and restraining order laws in this nation do little more than complicate marriages and family relationships, separate people that could otherwise work through difficulties, and cause a lot of employment for family law lawyers, courts, and shelters -- all of which have a vested interest in the system. It frankly tears families apart and needs revision. If you speak with most people who have been married for decades, they will tell you they had their difficulties. They argued at times, there may have been affairs or yelling or minor violence or threats. However, this is human nature and not surprising for people that have been together for decades. But people can work through their differences and fix them if they try.

However, the DV and restraining order laws actually COACH the "victims" on how to retailate; the laws require NO CONTACT which precludes any successful and friendly resolution and creates bitter enemies; the laws significantly favor women and create bitter men; the laws tie up vast amounts of the families resources in lawyers and courts and fees.... and most concerning the system is way too eager to begin the process even at the hint of a loud argument, or the ALLEGATION of 'violence' -- including "he punched the wall and then left." All of this undermines family, values, and freedoms and the nation suffers as a result from broken homes, creates single parent families, stripped Constitutional rights, wasted tax dollars, wasted law enforcement time (a full 35% of LEO calls are DV related -- I see that as a problem not with human behavior but with the definition of DV), and wasted resources.
 
As far as the concerns about whether a person wants to "violently" destroy his property, where is it a crime to smash your own property (as long as you're not committing insurance fraud, for instance)?
Click to expand...

As you should well know, it's disorderly as mentioned above, and it very easily can constitute an assault.
However, the DV and restraining order laws actually COACH the "victims" on how to retailate; the laws require NO CONTACT which precludes any successful and friendly resolution and creates bitter enemies;
Click to expand...

As lead counsel, you do realize that assault as a crime traditionally is by definition a no-contact offense, right?

Behaving in such a manner that people reasonably fear you will hurt them is illegal. It is a criminal and civil offense. And it is so for a reason...up to now, it's been commonly accepted that smashing things and acting out in a violent manner is not acceptable for civil society. It scares the kids, neighbors, and spouses who have to watch it, and you bet I'd want the police to give a talking to someone say ripping up the interior of his car in a parking lot while his wife sits with a terrified look in the passenger seat.

I think automatic CCW once the necessary facts have been made out to gain a restraining order is the way to go! Let joe-likes-to-show-off-by-hitting-things know that he's got a good incentive not to agitate the ex.
 
Shootin' student:

You can honestly evaluate your entire life and say you've NEVER raised your voice, pushed someone, slammed a door, smashed something in frustration, etc.? If so you're a better man than me! I only wish I was so angelically perfect.

Now if your answer is that you had done something like raising your voice or pushing someone, do you think you're fit to own a gun?

Is shooting an animal for hunting purposes violent? How about shooting a rodent for sport?

Let's say your spouse and you get into an argument on the back patio of your property in a rural area where you own 40 acres. You pick up your rifle in front of her and shoot a target on your property? How about a prarie dog on your property. Is that violence? What if it was a stray cat? How about HER cat? How is this different than if instead of walking inside and punching a wall? Slamming a door. What if she is blocking the entrance to the house and you push her aside to exit the sitaution? You tell me what is violent and what is not. I'm all ears.
 
You can honestly evaluate your entire life and say you've NEVER raised your voice, pushed someone, slammed a door, smashed something in frustration, etc.? If so you're a better man than me! I only wish I was so angelically perfect.
Click to expand...

Raising your voice is one thing. Slamming a door seems pretty normal too, definitely never done that though. But have I destroyed odd pieces of property and shoved a girlfriend over an argument with her? Never. And I'd be a scumbag if I ever had. I'd also buy a one-way greyhound ticket for any female companion of mine who chose to smash the TV instead of telling me what the problem is.

Let's say your spouse and you get into an argument on the back patio of your property in a rural area where you own 40 acres. You pick up your rifle in front of her and shoot a target on your property? How about a prarie dog on your property. Is that violence? What if it was a stray cat? How about HER cat?
Click to expand...

That is clearly violence. Context matters. If I'm arguing with some guy over a girl, and then I whip out my gun "just to clean it" in front of him, I'd be an idiot to not think I were sending a message. Same thing with shooting my spouse's CAT in front of her. That's something I'd hope to be jailed for, if only to prevent me from doing something even more stupid and violent.
You tell me what is violent and what is not. I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

You're the lawyer. That's why we have courts. I don't think there's a single state in the union that hasn't held conduct like smashing property during a fight with a spouse to be violent in a number of situations.

Assault is traditionally no-contact. There's a reason for it. You don't have any right to go around bullying people by gorilla-like displays of destruction.
 
Thanks Wildalaska!

If I could add something more to the topic....taking guns away, IMO, is more of a moral condemnation than a really effective crime prevention measure. If some psycho-ex is intent on doing harm, he'll go get an illegal gun to do it. So regardless of whether we take the guns away from one party in a domestic violence situation, the only real answer to the problem is self-defense.

Which my home state doesn't allow except in rare situations, unfortunately.
 
BS...Ive tried hundreds of cases, jury and non jury. Ive never found a judge who wouldnt give the defendant a fair shake
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That is SO funny I just can't stand not commenting. All I can say is that Wild must not know very many judges. Judges are a cross section of society. There are good ones, mediocre ones and (lots) of bad 'uns. Most of them get burned out and lazy so they start to rubber stamp everything and the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is ignored.

"Reasonable suspicion" is an ALLEGATION but most judges give it great deference and will issue orders/warrants on the strength of it without a hearing. (where did due process and the right of the accused to be heard go?) All TRO's are issued on reasonable suspicion and it becomes the burden of the restrained to prove that they do not need to be restrained. Failure to prove this results in the TRO becoming permanent. When did the burden of proof on the part of the ACCUSER disappear and why does the accused need to prove their innocense to an allegation to prevent/lift a punishment? JUDGES did this by starting this trend which has morphed into law. (see also "terry stop", knock notice, evanescent evidence, and other "exceptions" that have become de riguer instead of the rare case they are supposed to be.)

In California a TRO is MANDATORY in any domestic separation situation. The judge doesn't care, won't listen to argument, and WILL threaten to lock you up if you don't sit down and SHUT UP when she says that she's gonna issue the TRO. (BTW, "she" is a proper legal term and does not denote any sex characteristic or inference. So don't get yer panties in a bunch 'cuz I used it here. :D )

No allegations need to be presented. It's MANDATORY even if both parties state that no DV occurred, no police have been involved EVER, and that they are no longer living together. Raw deal? Yep. Best solution, be ready to cut and run at the first sign of impending domestic problems. You'll get a reputation of being unreliable and an "abandoner" but you'll still keep your rights.

Any peace officer who responds to a DV complaint WILL arrest someone because that's what he's been dispatched to do. If there wasn't some sort of "crime" being committed, he wouldn't be being directed to the scene. The arrest WILL be the male in a domestic situation because it's easier to control the situation that way. (trust me, cuffed and placed in the car is an "arrest" even if they let you go 20 mins later) Even guys who are bleeding badly WILL be cuffed and restrained (but not put in the car - ewww) while the woman remains free (unless she's wildly violent towards the officers). It's just easier to do it that way so that's the way they do it. Fair? No - just easier. Any cop who says otherwise is just BSing you. Good cops, mediocre cops and LOTS AND LOTS of bad cops have resulted in this general trend (not "policy) becoming the norm instead of the rarity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top