View Full Version : Well, SCOTUS is batting a thousand these days......
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-guns-20140327,0,74538.story#axzz2xF2SYkM8
Voted 9-0 to uphold the Lautenberg bullshit. Now, some more law-savvy types than myself have said the ruling didn't actually challenge the constitutionality of the law but skirted it (as some said Heller did) and only addressed the issue in the case.
I dunno......can we have some lawyer-esque input on this? Yeah, the guy did plead guilty to the DV charge and the appellate court threw out his illegal possession of a firearm charge (when he was caught with one some time after the DV conviction) citing that there was no proof he caused bodily injury to the woman. However, he did plead guilty so SCOTUS reinstated the weapons possession charge.
Maybe he made the plea just to get it off his back or face jail time? Couldn't afford to fight it with an attorney? We all know it isn't like a false DV claim has never been made. No woman would EVER do that......:rolleyes:
DV is defined WAAAYYY to broadly in some jurisdictions: yelling (i.e. raising your voice!), slamming a door, punching a hole in your own wall, verbal threats, and other horseshit like that are now used to revoke a Constitutional right.
I don't necessarily agree that cases of DV should disqualify someone. Especially since there is no requirement that physical force be a factor in a conviction. It may sound good in theory and obviously no one wants to have a domestic abuse to "abuse" but there are plenty of other ways for them to carry out their violence. Hands, blunt objects, and knives to name a few.
One of the biggest issues I have is that the law was applied retroactively. I am unaware of any other law that has been backdated that strips the rights of a person away.
I don't necessarily agree that cases of DV should disqualify someone. Especially since there is no requirement that physical force be a factor in a conviction. It may sound good in theory and obviously no one wants to have a domestic abuse to "abuse" but there are plenty of other ways for them to carry out their violence. Hands, blunt objects, and knives to name a few.
One of the biggest issues I have is that the law was applied retroactively. I am unaware of any other law that has been backdated that strips the rights of a person away.
A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I'm not at all in favor of making more things felonies (God knows that happens enough these days) but to make slapping or punching a spouse a felony when if it was a stranger it would be simple assault is not right. [caveat: I saw my dad hit my mom and though he's deceased I despise him for it to this day and only wished I hadn't been a kid as I'd have kicked his ass myself]
I guess *maybe*, just maybe, I could go with it if there was verifiable physical abuse that had taken place. But accusations without proof? No freaking way. Too much room for vindictiveness to rear it's ugly head. Not to mention these other bullshit definitions of DV that I listed in the OP.
I essentially was agreeing with you.
A misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. I'm not at all in favor of making more things felonies (God knows that happens enough these days) but to make slapping or punching a spouse a felony when if it was a stranger it would be simple assault is not right. [caveat: I saw my dad hit my mom and though he's deceased I despise him for it to this day and only wished I hadn't been a kid as I'd have kicked his ass myself]
I guess *maybe*, just maybe, I could go with it if there was verifiable physical abuse that had taken place. But accusations without proof? No freaking way. Too much room for vindictiveness to rear it's ugly head. Not to mention these other bullshit definitions of DV that I listed in the OP.
I essentially was agreeing with you.
Gotcha.
I remember when this BS passed back in '96 and thinking "WTF?". Even then it had an ex-post-facto ring to it with the retroactive part. Unfortunately Frank Lautenberg lived about 17 years too long.
Gotcha.
I remember when this BS passed back in '96 and thinking "WTF?". Even then it had an ex-post-facto ring to it with the retroactive part. Unfortunately Frank Lautenberg lived about 17 years too long.
It's not technically ex-post-facto in the legal sense of the term. You can ban behavior that people have been doing legally, but you can't punish them for doing it before the decision and generally have to give them some time to comply. In this case, they aren't even creating a new law, they're just interpreting an existing law.
"In a 9-0 decision, the high court said the ban extended to anyone who had pleaded guilty to at least a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, even in cases in which there was no proof of violent acts or physical injury."
Moral of the story, don't admit to doing something you didn't do.
I don't necessarily agree that cases of DV should disqualify someone. Especially since there is no requirement that physical force be a factor in a conviction. It may sound good in theory and obviously no one wants to have a domestic abuse to "abuse" but there are plenty of other ways for them to carry out their violence. Hands, blunt objects, and knives to name a few.
I agree that simply being accused of DV shouldn't disqualify someone permanently. A wife (for example) that wants to really hurt a firearm-loving husband (for example) can claim DV and mess up his hobby and possibly his job on whim.
In CO, being verbally negative to your own pet in front of someone you have asked on a date, but not even gone out with yet, can rate you a DV charge. Once a DV charge has been filed, it cannot be reduced to anything that does not include DV. This makes sense how?
In CO, being verbally negative to your own pet in front of someone you have asked on a date, but not even gone out with yet, can rate you a DV charge. Once a DV charge has been filed, it cannot be reduced to anything that does not include DV. This makes sense how?
DV to a pet? WTF? Animal abuse at most, and then only maybe, but not DV.
montanadave
03-28-14, 10:53
Losing a constitutional right because of a misdemeanor charge based on "saying something mean" is complete bullshit.
Then I open the paper and see this:
2 dead in Gardiner; preliminary findings indicate murder-suicide
The Park County Sheriff's Office is investigating a possible murder-suicide after Park County deputies and Yellowstone Park Rangers responded to a home in Gardiner Thursday afternoon to find one man dead and a woman in critical condition. The woman later died at the scene, according to a press release.
Yellowstone National Park dispatch received a call on Thursday about 4:30 p.m. from a female reporting a man breaking into her home. She reported that the male had already fired shots at her.
The caller reported the man by name. The press release stated that they had previously been in a relationship, according to initial reports.
The man was deceased when officers arrived on the scene, and the woman was in critical condition. Emergency responders tried to save the woman, but she died soon after.
The preliminary findings, according to the press release, indicate a murder-suicide.
The man had a previous charge of domestic violence.
A dispatcher for Park County said more information would be available Friday morning.
An autopsy is also scheduled for Friday.
One case, I know. But domestic violence is one of those "loaded" issues (no pun intended) that lawmakers, particularly men, are loathe to push back on.
Losing a constitutional right because of a misdemeanor charge based on "saying something mean" is complete bullshit.
Then I open the paper and see this:
2 dead in Gardiner; preliminary findings indicate murder-suicide
The Park County Sheriff's Office is investigating a possible murder-suicide after Park County deputies and Yellowstone Park Rangers responded to a home in Gardiner Thursday afternoon to find one man dead and a woman in critical condition. The woman later died at the scene, according to a press release.
Yellowstone National Park dispatch received a call on Thursday about 4:30 p.m. from a female reporting a man breaking into her home. She reported that the male had already fired shots at her.
The caller reported the man by name. The press release stated that they had previously been in a relationship, according to initial reports.
The man was deceased when officers arrived on the scene, and the woman was in critical condition. Emergency responders tried to save the woman, but she died soon after.
The preliminary findings, according to the press release, indicate a murder-suicide.
The man had a previous charge of domestic violence.
A dispatcher for Park County said more information would be available Friday morning.
An autopsy is also scheduled for Friday.
One case, I know. But domestic violence is one of those "loaded" issues (no pun intended) that lawmakers, particularly men, are loathe to push back on.
Actual domestic violence (as opposed to domestic threatening / domestic verbal abuse) shows the propensity of the person to use physical violence to solve emotional or other problems as the aggressor. I see no problem with those properly convicted of domestic violence, be it felony or misdemeanor, losing their right to bear arms.
DV to a pet? WTF? Animal abuse at most, and then only maybe, but not DV.
Verbal statements about the animal in the presence of a party that could be construed as to be meant to intimidate that party with whom any form of personal romantic relationship or the reasonable expectation of one exists, crosses over into DV territory by CO statute. And...don't even THINK about saying something negative to the actual person. Luckily, I'm quite partial to both my wife and my dog.
I'm not a big fan of the "lose your XXX right" for whatever reason. I'm more of a Roman mindset...you're either a citizen, with the full rights of a citizen, or you're not. I believe it highly unlikely that anyone has been truly saved by the Lautenberg Amendment, and releasing felons into society after their sentence, but then attaching a stigma of no voting, no firearms, and a record that follows them when they look for a job, etc., likely feeds recidivism. But, that's one man's personal opinion.
We have two men in my office currently suffering through divorce. One's estranged spouse attempted to have him classified as an active shooter threat at work (complete BS) and the U.S. Attorney'y office had to be notified (federal office). The other's estranged spouse left the area completely, yet filed a restraining order with the S.O. and claimed he was abusive to the family dog. I've worked with him for 12 years and seen this guy with my dogs. He loves them! Again, complete B.S.
I can't stand mysoginistic assholes who berate and intimidate women, much less abuse them. However, some women are batshit crazy and bear watching at all times. It's a two way street and removing someone's constitutional freedoms without the effort of a felony trial is a dicey subject, even under the clearest of circumstances. :(
I'm not a big fan of the "lose your XXX right" for whatever reason. I'm more of a Roman mindset...you're either a citizen, with the full rights of a citizen, or you're not. I believe it highly unlikely that anyone has been truly saved by the Lautenberg Amendment, and releasing felons into society after their sentence, but then attaching a stigma of no voting, no firearms, and a record that follows them when they look for a job, etc., likely feeds recidivism. But, that's one man's personal opinion.
And I share this opinion as well. I work in the legal system as a Bailiff and it amazaes me how easily your life can be screwed up with a simple alligation. And it also amazes me how many men will plead guilty to a DV charge just to get out of jail even though they say they're not guilty. The system is so jacked up but that's a discussion for another thread.
My advice to all memebers here is, if you get your ass in a sling with the law plead not guilty and hire an attorney. But I'm sure y'all knew that already...:)
As I stated previously, having personally seen DV as a kid I have NO sympathy for actual wife-beaters. None whatsoever. That said, the key word I used was actual. The laying on of hands crosses the line----everything short of that, however intimidating, does not. There is waaayyy too much room for bullshit shenanigans (usually by the woman), especially during a messy divorce or if the bitch is batshit crazy. There should be proof of physical violence, not just accusations.
In divorce proceedings some attorneys will direct wives to file protective orders when they are not warranted. One result is that the guy must turn in or sell all guns and ammo. I know a retired judge who was subjected to this treatment as payback. He owned about 100 firearms and much ammo and negotiated with a dealer to "hold" his collection. In Texas a protective order automatically suspends one's chl.
I'm convinced that those who plead out to a dv charge frequently are unaware of the consequences. Some pd's have a policy of taking at least one person to jail when answering these calls, and if you're accused of it, then you are considered guilty. Hiring an attorney to fight any charge is expensive and making a plea is easier. Also, a kid calling 911 on a parent usually results in a dv charge whether or not it's real.
Don Robison
03-28-14, 17:01
In divorce proceedings some attorneys will direct wives to file protective orders when they are not warranted.
In those cases the lawyer should face sanctions up to an including disbarment if the allegations are proven false or fabricated. Make the lawyer put some skin in the game and see how fast their tune changes.
I'm not a big fan of the "lose your XXX right" for whatever reason. I'm more of a Roman mindset...you're either a citizen, with the full rights of a citizen, or you're not. I believe it highly unlikely that anyone has been truly saved by the Lautenberg Amendment, and releasing felons into society after their sentence, but then attaching a stigma of no voting, no firearms, and a record that follows them when they look for a job, etc., likely feeds recidivism. But, that's one man's personal opinion.
Same here, if they are too dangerous to be on the street with all of their rights, they are too dangerous to be on the street.
Verbal statements about the animal in the presence of a party that could be construed as to be meant to intimidate that party with whom any form of personal romantic relationship or the reasonable expectation of one exists, crosses over into DV territory by CO statute. And...don't even THINK about saying something negative to the actual person. Luckily, I'm quite partial to both my wife and my dog.
I'm not a big fan of the "lose your XXX right" for whatever reason. I'm more of a Roman mindset...you're either a citizen, with the full rights of a citizen, or you're not. I believe it highly unlikely that anyone has been truly saved by the Lautenberg Amendment, and releasing felons into society after their sentence, but then attaching a stigma of no voting, no firearms, and a record that follows them when they look for a job, etc., likely feeds recidivism. But, that's one man's personal opinion.
Amen to that.
The man had a previous charge of domestic violence.
Not to dismiss your point, but what if many violent offenders had a common pattern of multiple traffic citations for speeding?
Also a charge is NOT a conviction and I think this is the biggest problem most of us have with the whole domestic violence issue. I know cops who had to be put on desk duty because of DV claims which later turned out to be fabricated.
Not to dismiss your point, but what if many violent offenders had a common pattern of multiple traffic citations for speeding?
Also a charge is NOT a conviction and I think this is the biggest problem most of us have with the whole domestic violence issue. I know cops who had to be put on desk duty because of DV claims which later turned out to be fabricated.
I also have heard one cop say that he's taken as many women in for DV as he has men (El Paso PD). Hey, cops are mostly men and no doubt know that BS accusations do exist. Sadly, there are many who don't feel like taking the effort to use their intuition and just haul the guy off instead.
I also have heard one cop say that he's taken as many women in for DV as he has men (El Paso PD). Hey, cops are mostly men and no doubt know that BS accusations do exist. Sadly, there are many who don't feel like taking the effort to use their intuition and just haul the guy off instead.
It's also sometimes very easy to be walked into a "confession." I've seen so many instances of guys who get talked into admitting things like "Well she was hitting me so maybe I might have shoved her trying to get her off me..." and things along those lines and "presto" you have enough "contact" for domestic violence even thought there was no genuine "violent contact" in the actual incident.
Sometimes officers exercise discretion based upon experience, but some just go with the standard qualifiers and the next thing you know somebody who really didn't do anything is being hooked up simply because he got talked into agreeing with the suggestion that he might have done something.
Sadly most "normal folks" (especially the innocent variety) just aren't savy enough to realize officers are generally asking questions to see if you qualify for being arrested (most think their answers are going to be used to get things straightened out) and don't have the experience most criminals have to STFU and ask for a lawyer. And the more they talk and try to "explain things" the deeper they usually dig their own hole.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.