Opinions wanted - Non-payment of child support?
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
Whiskey Tango
Moderator
Until his is convicted of anything, he should keep that freedom,and all other's he can enjoy. After a conviction...sayonara!
Unique 5.7
New member
I'm against stripping gun rights from non-violent felons. I just don't see the connection.
+1.
If you are taking away his right to firearms, why not go further and revoke his right to vote? Also, take away his right to complain about these rights being taken away.
Off topic, I just sen an article where dads who were paying child suport where joining the Army. Turns out when they take a drastic pay cut, their obligations remain the same, and many couldn't make the payments. Would you take away all their rights?
I've never been in a child support situtation, and I hope I don't have to be, but sometimes it seems like the father gets the very short end of the stick on that deal.
"I'm against stripping gun rights from non-violent felons. I just don't see the connection."
Roger that.
For that matter, I'm not in favor of criminalizing those who fall behind in their child support payments, it is just too much like debtor's prison. I mean, peoples' financial/job situations change. People can go broke due to no fault of their own, and yet the courts fail to take that into account.
And I say this as someone who does not have childeren, and does not owe anybody child support. I have no personal "dog in the fight".
Roger that.
For that matter, I'm not in favor of criminalizing those who fall behind in their child support payments, it is just too much like debtor's prison. I mean, peoples' financial/job situations change. People can go broke due to no fault of their own, and yet the courts fail to take that into account.
And I say this as someone who does not have childeren, and does not owe anybody child support. I have no personal "dog in the fight".
Here in glorious Pennsylvania, I don't see how the average guy could fall behind on his child support. As I found out a year or so ago, following my divorce, the moment child support is awarded the state garnishes one's paycheck. How can you miss a payment when you don't have the opportunity to make payments?
To answer the OP, no I don't think linking gun rights to child support is a good idea at all. In fact, I don't think firearms should be linked to much of anything that is connected with divorce. Too many divorces are characterized by one (or both) parties telling heinous lies about the other.
To answer the OP, no I don't think linking gun rights to child support is a good idea at all. In fact, I don't think firearms should be linked to much of anything that is connected with divorce. Too many divorces are characterized by one (or both) parties telling heinous lies about the other.
Insuring that the punishment fits the crime seems the appropriate doctrine to follow. In this case, child support has nothing to do with one's right to bear arms, and there are certainly more effective ways of getting the required support paid than to take away one's rights.
progunner1957
Moderator
Everything's a felony, everyone forefits gun rights
Only those convicted of violent crimes should not be able to keep and bear arms. At present, I would hazard a guess that there are more felony laws based on nonviolent crimes/offenses on the books than there are felony laws based on violent crimes. Why??? That's how antigun lawmakers and judges continue to choke the life out of the Second Amendment. Make as many crimes/offenses as possible felonies and -PRESTO!!!- fewer and fewer gun owners!!
"Felony" nonpayment of child support? WHY is that a felony? Who was killed, maimed or injured?? It doesn't matter - fail to pay support, forefit your Second Amendment rights.
Spouse calls 911 and claims you abused her - with NO BRUISES, CUTS, BURNS, BROKEN BONES or even a RED MARK to offer as proof? Guess what - you spend the night in jail and lose your Second Amendment rights based ONLY on her "good" word (at least you do in my home state of Indiana).
If "The Government" can just make every crime/offense a felony, we can ALL be disarmed!
Felony speeding, anyone? How about felony DWI? Felony lane change? Felony overtime parking? Felony jaywalking? Felony child spanking??
Felony swearing in public? Felony sedition by speech? Felony possession of incorrect reading material? Felony noncompliance with leaf raking ordinances?
Only those convicted of violent crimes should not be able to keep and bear arms. At present, I would hazard a guess that there are more felony laws based on nonviolent crimes/offenses on the books than there are felony laws based on violent crimes. Why??? That's how antigun lawmakers and judges continue to choke the life out of the Second Amendment. Make as many crimes/offenses as possible felonies and -PRESTO!!!- fewer and fewer gun owners!!
"Felony" nonpayment of child support? WHY is that a felony? Who was killed, maimed or injured?? It doesn't matter - fail to pay support, forefit your Second Amendment rights.
Spouse calls 911 and claims you abused her - with NO BRUISES, CUTS, BURNS, BROKEN BONES or even a RED MARK to offer as proof? Guess what - you spend the night in jail and lose your Second Amendment rights based ONLY on her "good" word (at least you do in my home state of Indiana).
If "The Government" can just make every crime/offense a felony, we can ALL be disarmed!
Felony speeding, anyone? How about felony DWI? Felony lane change? Felony overtime parking? Felony jaywalking? Felony child spanking??
Felony swearing in public? Felony sedition by speech? Felony possession of incorrect reading material? Felony noncompliance with leaf raking ordinances?
Sir William
New member
I truly feel that child support is a state sanctioned extortion. I cannot understand why our states don't make it difficult to obtain a divorce. Divorce has become the moral termite of the foundation of marriage. I don't see a child support payment as needed. Issue foodstamps, issue medical cards and send the family to Goodwill. A person cannot be stripped of their dignity, their rights and placed in confinement for other financial mistakes. Bankruptcies are about to be criminalized. I feel that the family should stay together and divorces should be reduced and disallowed as often as possible. Divorce is often a bitter contest between two idiots. The best thing to do is to simply stop granting every divorce.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
How can you afford a gun if you can't support your kid?
BigBoreKindaGuy
New member
I for one believe that if the guy is going to be constantly shooting his pecker and they ain't blanks that he is firing then he better be responsible enough to put any money he earns above and beyond his bare necessities (of which buying guns isn't one of them) to the children he produces. If he can't do that then make the law to have the SOB arrested and given the choice to either pay or be castrated.
As for the government and their laws regarding this situation.....until the state / federal courts off their lazy as* and start developing laws that enforce the arrest of SOB deadbeat Dads (and I use the word Dad regretfully in this case) the courts have no business looking for an easy way out by going through gun ownership laws.
As for those here saying the man is getting the short end of the stick regarding child-support laws......give me a break. Yes the child support dollar amounts the man ends up having to pay by court order far exceed the total monthly dollar amounts that it actually takes to raise a child but some payment must be mandatorily be made by the man....however likewise the court should demand that the wife account for every penny spent on a yearly basis and also provide a justification that the expenditure was necessary. If she doesn't account for the expenditures or provide valid provable reasons why then the monthly payments of the "Dad" are then reduced until he has been reimbursed that suspect amount.
In short...both the courts and the SOB dead-beat "Dad" have big problems and they both need to get their acts cleaned up together on this matter.
As for the government and their laws regarding this situation.....until the state / federal courts off their lazy as* and start developing laws that enforce the arrest of SOB deadbeat Dads (and I use the word Dad regretfully in this case) the courts have no business looking for an easy way out by going through gun ownership laws.
As for those here saying the man is getting the short end of the stick regarding child-support laws......give me a break. Yes the child support dollar amounts the man ends up having to pay by court order far exceed the total monthly dollar amounts that it actually takes to raise a child but some payment must be mandatorily be made by the man....however likewise the court should demand that the wife account for every penny spent on a yearly basis and also provide a justification that the expenditure was necessary. If she doesn't account for the expenditures or provide valid provable reasons why then the monthly payments of the "Dad" are then reduced until he has been reimbursed that suspect amount.
In short...both the courts and the SOB dead-beat "Dad" have big problems and they both need to get their acts cleaned up together on this matter.
Maybe even better Sir William, is to make marraiges a little more difficult to do! It's takes no time at all to get married (California might be the longest, due to the blood tests, NY took a 24 hour period to process the paperwork before you could get married). It's hard to agree to make it harder to get a divorce, if the couple/family is already at that point, making them stay together is just asking for more trouble.
As far as child support, the men are still the ones who make the money more often than not. Sure the wives work a lot more these days, but they typically earn less salaries (not being sexist, just the latest facts). So when a couple splits up, and has children (I think alimony is silly though), by all means both parties should be paying for their children! As far as how to make them pay, that's a tougher call. I have mixed feelings on that one.
As far as child support, the men are still the ones who make the money more often than not. Sure the wives work a lot more these days, but they typically earn less salaries (not being sexist, just the latest facts). So when a couple splits up, and has children (I think alimony is silly though), by all means both parties should be paying for their children! As far as how to make them pay, that's a tougher call. I have mixed feelings on that one.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
BigBoreKindaGuy - you obviously have never been involved in a divorce involving children. Hope you never do, because the day that happens, you are going to find out things you obviously do not have the first clue about.
DolanP is correct about being able to purchase a weapon i Texas, but good luck buying a hunting license, which just might feed a kid.
DolanP is correct about being able to purchase a weapon i Texas, but good luck buying a hunting license, which just might feed a kid.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
+1 again.
What is a "non-violent" felon, anyway?
A child molester that touches, but does not physically hurt?
A contractor that used unsafe materials to increase his profit?
A habitual drunk driver?
A drug dealer?
A con artist that takes away a retirees only income?
As you might note, none of those crimes are "violent". I guess that means that those people are a different sort of person than someone who'd take money with a knife?
The gun community might well consider how smart it is to make felonies that involve weapons and force a worse category then the rest. Hurting people is hurting people - making a weapon or a fist the symbol of a higher level of hurt just ends up reflecting on the weapon itself.
A child molester that touches, but does not physically hurt?
A contractor that used unsafe materials to increase his profit?
A habitual drunk driver?
A drug dealer?
A con artist that takes away a retirees only income?
As you might note, none of those crimes are "violent". I guess that means that those people are a different sort of person than someone who'd take money with a knife?
The gun community might well consider how smart it is to make felonies that involve weapons and force a worse category then the rest. Hurting people is hurting people - making a weapon or a fist the symbol of a higher level of hurt just ends up reflecting on the weapon itself.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
Handy-a good definition of a non-violent felon is Martha Stewart.
Pedophiles are not good examples.
Habitual drunk drivers are not felons, unless they hurt or kill someone with their vehicle, or unless the state has some kind of a 3 strike rule against it.
For some reason, dope dealers are.
People who swindle old folks are felons if the price is right.
So, you can pretty much get snockered so long as you don't cheat on your stocks and don't take a lot of money from old people, but if you start touching children inappropriately, we're gonna put you away for a long time.
Pedophiles are not good examples.
Habitual drunk drivers are not felons, unless they hurt or kill someone with their vehicle, or unless the state has some kind of a 3 strike rule against it.
For some reason, dope dealers are.
People who swindle old folks are felons if the price is right.
So, you can pretty much get snockered so long as you don't cheat on your stocks and don't take a lot of money from old people, but if you start touching children inappropriately, we're gonna put you away for a long time.