Can Domestic Violence Misdemeanant Possess In State Gun?

[bushmaster1313]

Under the Federal Misdemeanor violence Statute the violent misdemeanant cannot possess a gun in interstate commerce (18 USC 922(g)9 ?)

What about a gun made and sold in state?

Would this create equal protection issues for residents of states that do not make guns?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Everything about the gun would have to be made in one state. That goes from mining the ore the steel is made from, to drilling the oil the plastic parts are made from. If any part of that gun came from out of state, the Federal government claims they have control over it due to the interstate commerce clause.

So, in answer to your question, the Federal prohibition on firearms ownership for domestic violence convictions screws everyone equally.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Nice try .... won't work

 

[w_houle]

If any part of that gun came from out of state, the Federal government claims they have control over it due to the interstate commerce clause.

IIRC the Federal Gov't says that even things done just locally have an affect on interstate commerce.

 

[Lee Roder]

the Federal prohibition on firearms ownership for domestic violence convictions screws everyone equally

Sorry, I don't think it screws anybody

 

[NavyLCDR]

Sorry, I don't think it screws anybody

All that is required to convict a person of domestic violence is a bruise and a person claiming that their spouse or domestic partner caused that bruise. And then that domestic partner/spouse loses their rights to keep and bear arms for the rest of their life. When you have over 600 persons working for you, many under the age of 21, and you see this happen several times a year, you will understand how damaging this law is.

In addition, due to a circumstance such as this, the military member can be kicked out of military service because of their inability to be issued a firearm.

A person makes one mistake, commits a totally inappropriate action, I agree - but then does what it takes to remedy that situation - and yet this law for all intents and purposes, brands them a felon.

 

[DCR]

It most assuredly screws everyone equally. Vengeful cohabiting partners, current or ex-, can make an allegation that police and prosecutors, by virtue of having received TONS of federal grants to beef up their training, equipment and prosecution of alleged domestic violence cases, take up and prosecute to the hilt, per the terms of their grant funding, facts or self defense claims notwithstanding.

Even if the case gets pled out to something else - like disturbing the peace - the feds interpret the ultimate conviction as having arisen from domestic violence, and accordingly treat the "disturbers of the peace" as being included under the prohibition, and will deny them on NICS background checks and have them federally prosecuted if found in possession of a firearm.

Not only the vile, violent wife-beaters get caught up in this mess - the "victim" can be only pushed, held back, or simply placed in fear of their "partner" or ex partner might touch them against their will, and charges flow.

This Lautenberg stuff is one of the Brady's first, strongest and longest-lasting successes. While I don't condone violence in any form, this law went way too far IMHO, and needs to be seriously reined in.

 

[MinnMooney]

Not only the vile, violent wife-beaters get caught up in this mess - the "victim" need only to be pushed, held back, or simply placed in fear of their "partner" or ex partner might touch them against their will, and charges flow.

This Lautenberg stuff is one of the Brady's first, strongest and longest-lasting successes. While I don't condone violence in any form, this law went way too far IMHO, and needs to be seriously reined in.

This law gets taken advantage of by revenge-motivated mates all the time. Lawyers press their divorce clients to come up with anything that their mate does that makes them "feel" afraid so the mate can be charged with domestic violence. Real violence against another is wrong - plain & simple - but it should have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt just as all other criminal charges need to be proven.

This charge (like a false rape charge), if found to be brought out of revenge rather than fact, needs to have some teeth against the perpetrator of the false charge.

 

[PACKIN' PLASTIC]

The present system is designed to keep people in said system as much as possible to support the various government branches and programs.

If they fully restored your gun/voting/working/housing rights once you had served your sentence then you would be able to clean up and be a good citizen-bad news for government employees that depend on the injustice system.


PP

 

[sv51macross]

Are there any sites that have collected stories of cases where DV law was abused by vindictive women?

 

[Mags]

Simple solution: don't beat your spouse.

 

[NavyLCDR]

That doesn't always work. People get convicted all the time who don't beat their spouses.

Here's a case in point.

I had a guy who worked for me. His girlfriend called the cops on a Sunday saying that he hit her. Cops come and arrest him and set a court date. On Monday she WRITES a letter to the court saying that she was pissed at him and she called the cops because she was pissed and that no violence occurred.

I talk to the guy before he goes to court - no they did not drop the charge because she recanted - and tell him - do NOT take a plea! Do NOT take any offers! I guarantee they are going to offer some b.s. deal and you think you will be found not guilty because of the offer, but don't take it. If you screw up and you are found not to be not guilty of this, it will mess your life up for the rest of your life.

He comes back from court and I ask him how it went. He said he had to do so many hours of community service, go to anger management class, etc, etc..... I asked WHY?!? He said they would drop the charges if he did all that stuff and he took the offer! AND, they did not even have anyone pressing charges! The other party recanted her story IN WRITING!

So, now, guess what? He misses one class. Or one hour of community service does not get reported to the state. Or it does get reported to the state, but the state loses it. Then what happens? Automatic guilty conviction with no trial. By agreeing to their deal he, in essence, plead guilty.

Good law? I will never be convinced.

 

[Lee Roder]

Well, Navy, no offense intended and not tryin' to pick a fite, but it's true, a man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for his client. You warned him. You just can't help those who won't help themselves. Good "law" or inept "defense"? I think it's a great law myself. There are certain "behaviors" that cannot be tolerated in a polite society and dv is certainly one of them. tear the social fabric and you relinquish some "inalienable" rights. jmo

 

[caveman4867]

That Law is the worst law on the books,Destroys people all the time.Due harm pay for it.Harm done because someone says it happened is bull****.My god you must live in the Desert.Do some research. AMEN

 

[BeerSleeper]

There are certain "behaviors" that cannot be tolerated in a polite society and dv is certainly one of them. tear the social fabric and you relinquish some "inalienable" rights. jmo

That's a matter of opinion. I think "relinquishing rights" unnecessarily is a certain behavior that is not tolerated in a polite society.

 

[rbrtweber85]

Don't beat your wife and you wouldn't have to worry about.

 

[Lee Roder]

Oh oh, didn't mean to step on toes, you're right, I was just expressing my ARIZONA voting opinion. You can "nullify" it if you so desire.

Granted, there are "abuses" involved in that law, and any other for that matter, but the US legal system has remedies for "abuse of process" which are financially ruinous to the Defendant if successful. The Law is not "bad", just the followthrough. And no, you can't do it yourself.

 

[BeerSleeper]

Except wrongful prosecution. NavyLT gave a solid example in post 12. That stuff happens on a regular basis. I'm not defending dv. It's inexcusable, but no one should be punished for it unless it ACTUALLY HAPPENS.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So, should a person convicted of domestic violence lose their right to vote? Felons do. What's the difference?

 

[NukemJim]

In some states a raised voices ( no threats ) can (and has) been considered "Domestic Violence".

Plus the point is not whether or not you beat your partner/family member the point is whether or they said you beat them. The "rules" of evidence for such cases are extremely loose in terms of a simple conviction.

As far as locking up people who beat their partner or stalk others the current system fails miserably.

NukemJim

 

[Lee Roder]

I think (my personal opinion) that, like so many other things, it's not the Law that's "wrong" but how the Law is carried out or enforced that is somehow <Edit by Larry> up (in a few cases).

And DV *should* be a Felony (again my personal opinion,youre freely entitled to your own), but that's really up to your state legislators to make it happen (or to maintain the status quo) so get out and VOTE!

 

[NavyLCDR]

How about this. We just do away with the domestic violence law? Assault was illegal before the domestic violence law and is still illegal. What difference does it make if the person assaulted is the wife, the woman down the street, or a 7ft 400lb football player?

The fact that assault was already illegal, and yet "they" felt the need to make an assault on one person somehow a worse offense then an assault on anyone else shows the shady origins of this whole situation. What's the difference in smacking my next door neighbor and smacking my wife? Oh...wait, I probably wouldn't lose my RKBA for the rest of my life for smacking my neighbor.

 

[BeerSleeper]

It's similar to hate crime laws. If a criminal commits a crime against someone they hate, that is worse. If I criminal commits a crime against someone they love, that is worse. What about the people that criminal feels relatively indifferent toward? Crimes against them are going underpunished.

People aren't going to get the point that you don't stop crime by passing laws to make that crime "more illegaler". Just like gun control, really.

 

[Bubba613]

Don't go to stupid places.
Don't do stupid things.
Don't hang around stupid people.

Which one of these is unclear? If someone hooks up with a psycho chick who will lie about him abusing her, whose fault is that?

That said, the law sucks and needs to be repealed.

 

[Lee Roder]

What's the difference in smacking my next door neighbor and smacking my wife?

I don't know you, or your wife, but I think it reasonable to expect a world of difference between any relationship you have with your neighbor outside your home and that you have with your wife. Legally, these are very different relationships. You owe your neighbor nothing. There are no issues of reliance or trust. As to your wife? Well ...