Opinions wanted - Non-payment of child support?

What is a "non-violent" felon, anyway?
Click to expand...

Handy, point well taken. So let me clarify: rather than a blanket prohibition against felons owning guns, how about specifying which crimes should warrant the loss of the RKBA? Or, at least specify how long etc.

Here's an example: a guy writes a few bad checks in his early 20s. He did his time, and he's now 50. No crimes since then. He now has a family and lives like you and I live. Why should he not have the RKBA?

Remember that after felons serve their time, their First Amendment rights are restored in full, their fourth Amendment rights are restored in full, etc. etc.

But, for some reason, their Second Amendment rights are lost forever.

Advocating that all felons should never have their RKBA restored is, by implication, admitting that the Second Amendment is less important than the others. That's a tough position for a pro-freedom advocate to take, IMHO.
 
I have had to provide financial information to the court for LEOs getting divorced. It amazed me that the courts could decide on $400.00 per child X2 children when an officer only made $1200.00 before taxes per month. The general pay increase per annum is 3%. Look at how the child support is guesstimated, it is astronomical. I have seen good people ruined by divorce and child support. The first thing done when a LEO is experiencing financial problems is their removal from sensitive assignments. No task forces, narcotics, promotions or premium training because they are considered at risk. Guilty without due process. A bankrupt LEO is a liability though. A LEO with a 3% annual pay increase and child support that is set stupidly high is a liability. If more courts looked at the family and made every effort to maintain the family unit, I feel more marriages would succeed. I cannot recall how many divorces are really the result of one partner maturing while the other cannot adjust to adulthood, parenthood and they want to escape responsibility. Child support should be restricted only to intact families as the Earned Income Child Tax Credit only. Get a divorce, get a clue and get a job.
 
Well Mr. NanCarrow:

I don't need to experience a divorce that involves children to know what my moral priorities should be. And to allow a dead-beat "Dad" (read as loser) to spend money on firearms instead of giving that money to the raising of his children (assuming his bare necessities have been met first) is atrociously wrong anyway you cut it.

Call me uninformed or naive or whatever but I am certainly glad I didn't have a "Dad" that had to debate what was more important in his life (his guns or his children)...he just knew what was because he was a smart man ......and a strong good man....not weak and afraid to stand up for what he knew to be instinctively correct.
 
I don't think anyone is saying the father shouldn't help raise the children. I think they are saying that quite often, the award is outrageous, and some fathers are really victums.

I read about a case where a father was ordered to pay $3000 /month in child support. You can't honestly tell me that a regular child costs $3000 to feed and clothe.

What should happen, ideally, is that the parent in charge keeps track of expenses. The parent paying child support pays half of the tab. Percentage wise, it can be adjusted, if one is on some hard times, but there needs to be accountability that the money is going only to the child, and both need to be footing the bill.
 
As for those here saying the man is getting the short end of the stick regarding child-support laws......give me a break.
Click to expand...
Big Bore, (and others)

One thing I didn't mention. The person in question here isn't a man. The "dead beat" is a "dead beat mom"... (doesn't have the same ring does it?)

She's already well past the $5K mark and will probably hit felony money this time next year. {Her position isn't unique either. According to the .gov web sites, divorced non custodial mothers are the fastest growing segment of "dead beats".}

A couple of people mentioned that since they aren't divorced/have kids, they are removed from the problem. Actually, that isn't quite true. Since *mommy dearest* has hit the federal mark, and is now living and working out of state, the county has brought the feds into the enforcement of the nonpayment.
The local county ordered her out of state employer to garnish her wages a few months ago. Her employer refused. The feds are going to threaten the employer with criminal charges now to force them to comply. So people that are far removed from the original situation can suffer consequences.
That plus the cost of the various subsidies non payment often brings about comes right out of the tax dollars.

Personally, I feel this is only going to make things worse. No doubt her (work)days will be numbered and she'll lose her job before they garnish her wages.

- starting to drift so Ill get back -

Here's the conundrum. This woman is part of the fastest growing segment of dead beats. Most if not all of the "feel good" laws concerning support have been aimed at the men. Now,,,effectively,,what's going to happen,,is that a young lower income woman (and new mother I should add - she seems to have problems keeping her legs together), living in a questionable neighborhood, is on the verge of losing her 2nd amendment rights.

I highly doubt when all these laws were passed, anyone at the time considered that they would eventually work against the very group they intended to *protect*.

I thought I'd throw this out for the group since in so many ways, child support laws parallel gun control laws. It might be a good avenue to take when discussing the long term effect of gun control laws.
 
If you folks would read my first response I said the courts are demanding monthly dollars from the father that far exceed what is normally spent on a child on monthly basis. I also go onto say the mother needs to be held accountable for every penny spent.

What has peaked my interest in even responding to the original question is that the responses of many folks here seem to be more concerned with guaranteeing the constitutional gun rights of a "Dad" (or "Mom") in a child-support situation than they are with the fact that these people have a child support obligation that needs to be met first before thinking about petty stuff such as gun ownership.

Beside my response, of all the responses made I only found one other person's response (FrankDrebin) that voiced any concern that the children's welfare be considered more important than that person having the right to buy firearms.

The slightest concern for a person's gun ownership or buying rights versus that of a parent's obligation to their children just floors me to no end and screams volumes to how misaligned our societies priorities are.
 
Beside my response, of all the responses made I only found one other person's response (FrankDrebin) that voiced any concern that the children's welfare be considered more important than that person having the right to buy firearms.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's hard for the law to distinguish whether the guy is taking care of his financial obligations before he buys his toys. In this case, I don't see how you can tie a "right" to whether the guy has a job and is taking care of business, or is broke and out of work. It's more of a moral thing. But you CAN tie a right, in my opinion, to whether the guy is a criminal or not. If he's not paying his child support, and the court has decided he's able, he's a criminal. He can go to court anytime he wants when his financial situation changes to straighten things out. How many guys go to jail when they've actually made an effort to keep the court informed as to job changes, etc?? I don't think many...
 
Ok - while I do tend to agree with both of you on the importance of family welfare over buying "toys",,,can you look past the material part for a second?

This is a gun forum, and it is centered on the discussion of firearms. Intrying to stay within the rough framework of "firearm related" I stressed specificly the RKBA.

Let me ask,,,would your opinions remain the same if we shifted from the 2nd for a second?

Would you still rank family obligations above the right to vote?
 
If the person isn't incarcerated I see no just reason to deny them the rightful means to defend themselves and be available for militia sevice.
 
Code: 
I am certainly glad I didn't have a "Dad" that had to debate what was more important in his life

Good on your Dad, Bigbore. Raising the kids is important, and as a divorced father myself, I did have to make choices between firearms I wanted and the realities of life.

To that end, I struck a balance-firearms have been part of my life since my earliest memories, and to me an important tool in both bringing food to the table and protection of the home. That is a life lesson to me and to them.

I am now a proud father of 4-3 of which are serving the country and the youngest is itching to go-two girls and two boys. Not because I taught them to, or told them to. They do it because they believe its their duty. All of them honor students and more.

And, I was never a day late or a buck short, despite knowing full well the money was not necessarily going to the kids, despite knowing the money I paid was taxed-yet she gets the tax deductions and earned income credit, and does not have to declare child support.

If you think a contemporary divorced father has any rights or pull in todays court room, you do not know......
There are a few couples who break up and know what the responsibilities are and actually share them. Most seem to have it in for each other, and I see more often than not that the court takes the side of the mother without questioning her role, and the father gets grilled.

And some wonder why the hostility gets so great that some fathers throw up their hands and walk away? Thats not the right thing to do, but some walk away just to keep from committing violence!

They all like to hunt and fish just for the pleasure of the outdoors, and I believe its depite my ex and her machinations, as well as the courts, that I was able to accomplish what I did. I never had to debate what lessons my kids were going to learn for a moment. They were going to learn every thing I could teach them-might not have the fanciest equipment available, but it was good enough.

PS-its a small c :D
 
My story is a long and sordid one that has been rehashed here plenty. It involved an ex wife, false welfare claims that caused garnishments, George W. Bush and John Cornyn. The government wouldn't pursue charges against her for the welfare fraud nor the execution of a document by means of deception (both felonies) because it was a "civil matter". So if it is a civil matter, then so is the child support issue and I don't see losing ones right as a result of a civil matter. It's my "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" docrine.

Oddly enough, the Bill or Rights says that you cannot be denied life, or property without due process whereas the 2nd says nothing about losing rights. In fact, a right is a right.

There are lots of horror stories on both sides of the CS issue. Lots of lies are usually slung on both sides about the other
 
IMHO, this is a very good point:
"I don't think anyone is saying the father shouldn't help raise the children. I think they are saying that quite often, the award is outrageous, and some fathers are really victims. I read about a case where a father was ordered to pay $3000 /month in child support. You can't honestly tell me that a regular child costs $3000 to feed and clothe."
Click to expand...

In many states, the amount of child support reflects the parents' incomes, rather that the reasonable cost of caring for the children. Thus, were Bill Gates to become divorced, his child support requirements might be millions of dollars annually. That is simply wrong, in my opinion. While I certainly agree that parent's have an unquestioned moral and legal responsibility to care for children, that does not mean to ensure they are wealthy.

Further, what guarantees the funds provided for child support actually benefit -- 100 percent -- the minor child, rather than the custodial parent? I wonder how many custodial parents live much-improved life styles based on support payments that are supposed to benefit ONLY the child?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Dadgummit Handy, I'm agreeing with you again. Something is wrong.

Of course everyone's case is different, but IMHO, a father's absolute obligation, given to him by God himself, is to provide for his children. If the mother is abusing the money that should be going to the children, then a separate trust should be set up. The money should go to the children though, not the mother, not the mother's new boyfriend's beer account, and it certainly should not go to guns. If a man is buying guns while his children are wanting for basic necessities like clothes to wear to school and food on the table, he is a shame to us all, whether he is still married to the woman or not.

If a man is not supporting his children, but is going out buying toys, how can you call him a man?

Should it affect his right to keep and bear arms? No. Should it affect his ability to buy another gun? Darn tooting!
 
You seem to have the idea that the guy is out buying new guns. What about the old single shot shotgun that his grandpa gave him 30 years ago? SHould bhe be allowed to keep it?
 
Let's see...what is one major reason people here believe in the RKBA? Yes...personal defense. Personal defense of the dead beat who is being sued is for the benefit of the children. If you laugh at this, then throw your self defense guns away. Personal defense of one's family, such as the children in question. Why take the Mom's/Dad's gun away?
Maybe the gun should be looked at as any other property to be liquidated to pay past debts. Then some sensible priorities can be established on what property to dispose of. For example, we're not going to have the parent sell their work clothes are we? Maybe the deadbeat's partner WANTS the spouse to still have the gun for the sake of the children. My ex was glad I protected our children when I had them.
 
Maybe the gun should be looked at as any other property to be liquidated to pay past debts. Then some sensible priorities can be established on what property to dispose of. For example, we're not going to have the parent sell their work clothes are we? Maybe the deadbeat's partner WANTS the spouse to still have the gun for the sake of the children. My ex was glad I protected our children when I had them.
Click to expand...
Caveat: I've never been through a divorce or a bankruptcy..........
If I remember right, a person going through bankruptcy is allowed to keep his clothing and the tools of his trade. A gun for self defense is fine to retain in my book, as that qualifies as a tool for personal protection. A collection of 50 guns does not qualify.

If my children needed to be provided for, I would sell my grandpa's shotgun, or anything else he gave me. I would expect my widow to do the same with my things if I were dead.
 
I would sell my grandpa's shotgun, or anything else he gave me. I would expect my widow to do the same with my things if I were dead.
Click to expand...

My point was that people are getting caught up on the economics of keeping it, not the right to keep it.

Sure, it should be treated as any other property when the time comes to liquidate. But no, he should not have the right to own it stripped.
 
Quote:
Would you still rank family obligations above the right to vote?


Quote:
I don't have a problem denying felons the right to vote.

Saw this and have to ask, would anyone be in favor of barring the convicted from attending church services?
 
Listen everyone I am 15 my dad died last march. My parents were divorced by the time I was 6. It was hard but it wasnt that big of a difference. Nyway my dad never paid child support after the 1st year. Do you want to know how much that amounted to. 30 thousand dollars :eek:. Listen I didnt know about that until my mom and my fathers executor were talking. Now my brother and I feel compelled to use any money left to me after I pay for college to my mom. Listen folks my moms car died and we couldnt afford to get a new one now we used my trust money and I didnt mind but boy that 30 grand sure would have helped
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top