Judge Joe Brown and CCW

Status
Not open for further replies.

lan40583

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11
So I was channel surfing this afternoon when I happened upon an episode of Judge Joe Brown in which a CCW applicant was suing his instructor for providing incorrect information.

The plaintiff claimed that when he called his instructor to sign up for the class, the instructor told him that even though the plaintiff had a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, it would not prevent him from getting his CCW because the conviction was over 10 years old. He was suing the defendant for the cost of his class, as well as the $65 background check fee (I think he is a resident of Ohio).

Judge Joe Brown very quickly found in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff didn't bother to look up the law for himself. Also, I was very impressed with what Judge Joe Brown had to say about the case in general. He told the defendant that even though he was unable to get his CCW license, the class he took was valuable instruction that taught him "how to use his modern day teeth and claws, firearms." After dismissing the case, he said that he was very glad that this case gave him the "opportunity to pontificate on the second amendment, which he holds dear." Overall I was very impressed with Judge Joe Brown's attitude toward CCW, and its very refreshing to see a Judge (even one on TV) hold a positive view of the second amendment.

Now, I wonder what would have happened if it were Judge Judy hearing the case.
 
A qualifying misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is a lifetime firearm prohibition. Does not matter how old it is.

If the victims relationship to the "Offender" is any of the following, he is disqualified for life:

Spouse/Girlfriend
Child
Parent/Gaurdian
Someone "Similarly Situated" to any of the above parties.


"Similarly Situated" means all the same problems and responsibilities, so if the parents left an older brother at home to watch the younger one while the parents were out of, town for example, and he in turn punches the younger one in the face, he is considered "Similarly Situated" and the Federal MCDV prohibitor applies.

I know there may be more prohibiting relationships, but I can't think of them right now, Sibling-on-Sibling crimes do not count under federal law unless they are similarly situated as described above.

While be may be eligible to get his CCW permit, if he posesses a firearm at any point during the licensing process, and/or after he gets the permit, he is committing a federal felony. Certain states have an expungement process which is acceptable by the feds, while others do not.

Be careful out there, I am not a lawyer so this isn't legal advice. But I went through it myself and like to think I know alot about this particular area of law.
 
I was surfing and saw the same one - and was also impressed that the good judge stated he holds the Second Amendment near and dear to his heart.

For all her bluster and "don't p** on my leg and tell me it's raining" faux-conservative talk, unless I learn Judge Judy has shed her anti-gun views and joined JPFO, we all know what her editorializing would have been on the subject: the complete opposite of Joe Brown's on the whole 2A.
 
I usually find Judge Joe to be a little too "theatrical" for my taste, but I've seen numerous episodes where he's mentioned firearms/armed self defense/2-A issues favorably.

Judge Judy (my personal fave) goes back and forth - I think for her it's much more dependant on the individual she's dealing with - if she thinks they're a doofus, then her anti side comes out. Otherwise, it's kind of a coin-flip. I don't think I've ever seen her come out decidedly on the pro side, but I'll take indifference to constantly anti any day.
 
Just for the record. These people are not judges (they may have been once) they are actors! Any rulings they may make are simply opinions.
 
Just for the record. These people are not judges (they may have been once) they are actors! Any rulings they may make are simply opinions.

So? I don't think anyone here is debating the reality of the verdicts. And for the record, they're arbitrations, which are actually binding.
 
Just for the record. These people are not judges (they may have been once) they are actors! Any rulings they may make are simply opinions.

They are functioning as Arbitrators. Not being a legal beagle I don't know if they still need an active attorney license, or some other sort of certification.

My buddies kid sister is a high buck lawyer in California, and states that when she was pregnant she watched Judy and stated that her law was very good.

Go figure.

Fred
 
It better be good - she's been practicing since 1965.
Actually, it's:
"It better be good - She has basically unlimited time and has legal assistants (maybe even real lawyers) to review the cases and pre-determine a ruling prior to an offer being made to the participants to be paid to appear on an entertainment program."
 
"It better be good - She has basically unlimited time and has legal assistants (maybe even real lawyers) to review the cases and pre-determine a ruling prior to an offer being made to the participants to be paid to appear on an entertainment program."

Once again, so what?
 
Actually, most of the TV judges like The People's Court judges, Joe Brown, Mathis, are retired REAL judges. They aren't just actors working off a script.

Judge Marilyn Milian from the Peoples Court

Judge Mathis

Judge Joe Brown

Judge Judy

Retired = Used to be. As in, no longer is.

All I'm saying is they are paid ACTORS. They did not get and keep these gigs because of their understanding of the law, they keep them because their ACTING (personalities) makes the network money, period.

I watch these shows as much as I do "Operation Repo", "Southern Fried Stings" and all the other fake 'reality' shows.

As for the statement they are arbitrators, sure if you consider a TV shows that provides an all expenses paid trip for folks to fly out to California, being chauffeured around and paid an amount equal to or greater than the amount possible in their civil claims at home, then sure, it's an arbitration.
 
Last edited:
Being retired from a real bench means that they are no longer bound by anything at all really. No Stare Decisis, no appeals, etc. There is really nothing at stake, the show pays the awards. (How else do you think they convince these morons to go on the show?) I remember Wapner in particular had a tendency to use the law books as a booster chair and declare whatever he wanted to. They are the opportunity for judges who are no longer bound by the rules to make the rulings they always WISHED they could while they were wearing robes.

And yes, these syndicated shows make a pile of money.
 
I'm not sure I buy the "I was just channel surfing" :rolleyes: statements either. C'mon guys we all watch these shows sometimes...probably just for a laugh, but we DO watch them sometimes ON PURPOSE. :D

I'm actually more surprised that the network allowed Judge Joe's pro-gun statements on the air. :what:

It's been my observation that MOST TV networks :barf: are pretty leftist in their views on such things as gun control and CCW issues. :banghead:
 
His Honor Judge Joe Brown. A good man. I've rode horse back with him. His good sense of humor and his singing (to his horse) make him a blast to ride with...
 
So, what type of scumbag CCW instructor would refuse to refund the class because he gave wrong eligibility advice? I can't imaging that this little spat was worth his time....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top