Violence Vs Domestic Violence

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't believe every situation is the same, but a judge should be able to take 2a rights away from somebody that shows despicable social behavior to those he(or she) "loves" once the offender is convicted by a jury, sentenced, and imprisoned.

Fixed.
 
In many states the whole ammendment is near meaningless anyway. The judge can hand down deferred prosecution if the person takes anger management classes or some other such nonsense.

In some states such as Texas or Colorado this is pretty commonplace and saves careers for LEOs and military. But judges pretty much do it for everyone.

I do not think the ammendment serves a useful purpose. If the crime was serious it should be a felony. If the crime was not serious why are we taking guns away? It makes no sense and is not enforced equally across the board.
 
I don't believe every situation is the same, but a judge should be able to take 2a rights away from somebody that shows despicable social behavior to those he(or she) "loves" once the offender is convicted by a jury, sentenced, and imprisoned.
Click to expand...
+1. If they can't be "trusted" with firearms, they should be locked up.

I also despise the specialized laws for domestic violence, hate crimes, etc.
 
once the offender is convicted by a jury, sentenced, and imprisoned.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree, though a veteran Judge should be able to make a competent decision. It the judgment is against the aggressor, he should be able to appeal it, on his own dime. It is an internal conflict of taxpayer vs. citizen, for me anyhow. I don't believe imprisonment is the best answer for isolated incidents, proven or not.

But it is a complicated issue, I'm confident no one person has a completely balanced view on this, I am absolutely no exception.

In the future, please note that it is impolite to "fix" what I say, merely disagreeing is less abrasive.
 
I somewhat agree, though a veteran Judge should be able to make a competent decision. It the judgment is against the aggressor, he should be able to appeal it, on his own dime. It is an internal conflict of taxpayer vs. citizen, for me anyhow. I don't believe imprisonment is the best answer for isolated incidents, proven or not.

But it is a complicated issue, I'm confident no one person has a completely balanced view on this, I am absolutely no exception.

In the future, please note that it is impolite to "fix" what I say, merely disagreeing is less abrasive.
Click to expand...

1) You afford too much latitude to judges. Many 'veteran' judges are politicians that are good at getting reelected. Time of service does not make one competent.

2) Imprisonment may be the best answer for isolated incidents depending on the nature of the crime and whether there was intent or not.

3) On 'fixing', lighten up. For me, that was FAR from abrasive. I was just having a little fun on an otherwise dull day. :)
 
Let's see if we can't look at the actual law

usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html


(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Looks like the law says you have to be convicted of DV or that a court order restraining you from specific behavior was issued and only if the court order was issued after a hearing you received actual notice of and you had the opportunity to participate in and that there is a finding you represent a credible threat to the physical safety of someone and if it explicitly prohibits force or threat of force that would be expected to cause bodily injury.

Let's be sure what the law says before we go flying off the handle.
 
One of the unintended consequences of tis law is that many misdemeanor battery charges that used to be disposed of by plea bargain are now domestic battery charges and because of the loss of RKBA that is associated with a conviction, these charges are often fought vigorously in court. What used to be settled with a fine and a 2 minute appearance before the judge is now eating up resources for trials.

So in many jurisdictions, the domestic battery charges are lowed to simple battery to get the guilty plea. Now the domestic abuser doesn't face the enhanced penalties that go with domestic battery because the idiots who passed this legislation failed to anticipate that people would actually fight to keep their RKBA and that our already overloaded court system would simply dispose of the domestic battery charge in the most expedient way.

What we've seen in many places is fewer convictions for domestic violence charges and more abusers being free to continue their abuse. Mr Lautenberg should be ashamed.....

Jeff
 
I do not think the ammendment serves a useful purpose.
Click to expand...
"Useful" can mean a different thing to a Nazi than to a Jew. The amendment serves to identify gun-ownership as a different category of political existence, subject to different (punitive) rules, automatically, even when circumstances are otherwise similar. To some people, that is highly "useful."
 
In my LEO experience I have found that it isn't the true "battered woman", smashed by years of abuse and control, that calls the police. She's far to afraid to call, and wouldn't be allowed to be a witness anyway.

One ones who call are the girlfriends that got into a heated verbal argument that ended with a push or shove and who see the opportunity to get back at the boyfriend.

It's exactly as described, above. If I'm interviewing a woman and she lipped off to some huge guy at a bar and got pushed away, it's no big deal. Prosecutor won't issue unless she's visibly injured. Oh wait, that's your ex-boyfriend? That changes everything...*clink*
 
I've arrested females to males at least 3 to 1. The typical scenario is he pisses her off, she hits him, he hits her back, she calls the police and wants him arrested.
Click to expand...

Yup, my experience as well. The majority of the time I'd arrive at the scene and here's a guy with scratchmarks and torn clothes, looks like he was fed through a shredder, and theres the female yelling "now here's the cops come for you so you get out of here before I hit you again"

Then she'd want me to arrest the guy?!?

As Sergeant Saber said above, the times we could count on needing to act against the male were when some third party called it in. The female was usually suffering from "abused spouse" syndrome and almost never called.
 
Just to throw another monkey wrench into it when the offense occurs on a military post it is often handled with non-judicial punishment that is low enough not to merit a conviction of a crime.

So for example an enlisted Sailor returns from a float, slaps his wife around and is arrested by the SPs. He will most likely receive Captains's Mast instead of a higher courtmartial. This never goes on his civilian criminal record so he never worries about being affected by the ammendment and can still remain a happy sailor. Although he may lose his security clearance.

Say another sailor lives off post and does the same thing. He will face the local prosecuter and start looking at a early end to his career unless he can beat it.

Just another example of unequal treatment before this crazy law.
 
The Lautenberg act should be either wholly repealed or reformed at the very least. The preponderence of evidence thing has GOT to be unconstitutional just on the rules of "heresay" alone. IANAL and I don't know the correct verbiage but there MUST be a way to fight it.

I myself am a victim of the Restraining Order, or even worse, the Final Restraining Order in New Jersey where Final Restraining Orders are PERMANENT until dismissed. She found out my father filed a complaint against her for calling his phone 30+ times in the span of an hour after telling her to never call his phone. When I told her about the complaint my father filed against her, I was served a restraining order that same night.

I never raised my voice at her, I never put my hands on her, I never threatened her. She got a restraining order just because she said she felt "threatened." Thats it. No accusation of violence, just that she felt threatened.

To make matters worse, I missed the court date because I was in traffic court in another town. Needless to say, I never got a chance to defend myself. About two months later we reconciled and the whole thing was dropped before going to court for the trial. So I was never convicted of anything.

Restraining orders these days are mostly used as a tactical maneuver by women. They badly need to be reformed.

While some people GENUINELY need them, the vast majority are bogus IMHO.

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread but I am very passionate about this subject since I personally have been affected by it.
 
this thread strikes close to the bone for me; i'm currently prohibited from owning a firearm, ammunition, or components until the end of June, because i was hit with a PFA (Protection From Abuse) in civil court, from my ex. this entire situation stemmed from a custody complaint i filed, because she was denying me access to my daughter. as soon as she received the court papers detailing my complaint, she went down to the courthouse and filed for a PFA.

despite the fact that she offered not one shred of actual evidence, like a police report detailing any abuse, medical records detailing injuries, photographs, eyewitness accounts, or anything that would have given any credence to her testimony, the judge in my case ruled in her favor.

her rationale? i was a gun owner, i had a large collection of firearms and knives (which she had pictures of, courtesty of the internet), and she was wary of risking anyone's safety, in the case that i may be dangerous, even though there was no evidence to support that.

the judge even suggested that i was not to be allowed to retain my knife/sword collection, but as Lautenberg doesn't cover that, i've managed to hang onto what i didn't sell to pay my legal fees.

the deputies who originally served the warrant were a bit more understanding. when i let them in my home, the first thing they asked was, "do you guys have a custody thing going on?" apparently, filing PFAs is a common tactic used by women during divorce/custody proceedings, to throw a wrench in the man's legal strategy.

al this happened last June. i'm still disgusted by the legal system, and the fact that i'm viewed as nothing more than a common criminal, even though i have never even been charged with a crime of any kind, besides a traffic violation. Lautenberg needs to be repealed. it does absolutely nothing to protect women from men who are genuinely dangerous; just like gun conrtol, it only serves to hurt the law abiding.
 
I wonder if there is any real action on this. If any legal grounds have been established or at least have been presented that we could possibly get some legal action started. Too many people, men mostly, are being victimized by these Orders. How in the world can a simple accusation without ANY proof be used to screw your life?

I found this on hearsay. IANAL but aren't the core rules of the "Hearsay" exceptions in the Lautenberg and other Acts a direct abridgment of the 14th amendment due process clause and parts of the Privileges and Immunities Clause? How are these "hearsay" exceptions legal?

Any lawyers care to comment?

I found this petition if anyone cares to sign it. Petition to repeal the Lautenberg Act
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately the road is OPEN to include ANY convictions for misdemeanor assaults in Lautenberg. And as with the DV convictions, it would likely be retroactive. :fire:

So that would eliminate a lot of people from gun ownership right there! :banghead:

Lautenberg is the biggest threat to the 2A that currently exists. Gun owners everywhere should fight to repeal it. Unfortunately doing so means you support 'wife beaters.'
 
Leadcounsel, I think if we attack the preponderance of evidence and hearsay exemption rule under the guise of abridgement of due process, we could beat it that way. Also, we could fight for penalties for filing a false complaint. That would give people who use restraining orders without merit some pause before they try to get one.
 
Downr@nge said:
...I found this on hearsay. IANAL but aren't the core rules of the "Hearsay" exceptions in the Lautenberg and other Acts a direct abridgment of the 14th amendment due process clause and parts of the Privileges and Immunities Clause? How are these "hearsay" exceptions legal?...
Click to expand...
Without turning this into a law school course on the law of evidence, there are a great many well recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, and many of them have been around for a long time. Certainly the admission of something into evidence is always subject to challenge -- perhaps as inadmissible hearsay, perhaps on other grounds. Whether or not the challenge will be successful will depend on the exact circumstance and will be a matter for the trial judge -- and ultimately, perhaps, a court of appeal.
 
Several years ago, we had a guy that was locked up for child support. He got his child support lowered because he proved to the court that she lied about her income. He subsequently got released from jail but had an outstanding warrant for trespassing in another county. She called the jail and found out that he was not here in our locality not knowing about the charge in another jurisdiction.

She went down to the magistrate with the water works going and concocted a story that he broke into her house, hit her and threatened to kill her if she called the police. The magistrate whipped out several warrants. One being Domestic A&B.

The guy had the best alibi of all. He was locked up the whole time. However, when his defense attorney presented this, the CA refused to prosecute her because she 'was a victim'. The man was held an additional two weeks before he made bond on those two charges and he was a victim!
 
Leadcounsel is right: it is much, much worse than has been discussed thus far.

The act prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) from possessing a firearm. Bottom line, unless a defendant gets an absolute dismissal or acquittal, or some mechanism in their state's law allows for ultimate expungement or dismissal, ATFE will still consider them a "prohibited person."

It doesn't matter what the plea bargain is or what they are ultimately convicted of, because ATF is doing two things.

First, ATFE now looks at the amended charge to determine whether it includes as an element of the offense (1) any act of force or violence, and (2) whether the "victim" was a person intended to be "protected" by Lautenberg. If so, ATFE's interpretation is that a MCDV has occurred, and the defendant is still a "prohibited person." Thus, plea bargaining down to simple (misdemeanor) assaults or batteries, disturbing the peace, unlawful detainer (a diet form of kidnapping) or some other offense that contains (or even hints at) any element of force or violence doesn't allow the defendant to escape becoming a "prohibited person."

***note: some states have legal mechanisms to prevent or remove the "stain" of the conviction from the MCDV realm, but I am unaware which ones, and so-called "withheld judgments" aren't always enough.

Second, if it is unclear to ATFE whether the amended charge may be a MCDV that renders the defendant a "prohibited person," they have begun going so far as to request original charging documents, police reports, "victim" and witness statements, 911 call recordings, and even transcripts or audio from any final plea/sentencing hearings to determine whether the two key elements, an act of force or violence against a person protected under the act, based on that evidence, had occurred. are present. If, based on that information, ATFE finds evidence that a MCDV happened, they then classify the defendant as a "prohibited person."

Worse yet, there's legal precedent, in the form of a US Supreme Court opinion (don't have the cite, but it's recent - within the last two years; will try to find and post if others can't locate it) backing up ATFE's interpretation.

Bottom line: there are scores of "prohibited persons" unwittingly committing a federal felony out there right now simply because they mistakenly believe the plea deal they took allowed them to escape Lautenberg's clutches and they got to keep their guns.

The whole act needs to go; start over from scratch.
 
MASTEROFMALICE said:
True but...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the real kicker. Only the arrest is mandatory. Almost without fail, the woman either doesn't show up to court or, if she does, proceeds to tell the judge all about how the mean cop arrested her poor husband for no reason.

I've seen maybe five convictions in five years, and that is no exaggeration.
Click to expand...

Yep. These laws are ridiculous as far as DOMV is concerned, and they are just as nutty here in Colorado. For us, we must make an arrest if we determine that there is probable cause to believe that a violation has taken place, and that arrest is mandatory even when the victim completely and totally refuses to cooperate with the investigation. Plus, the arrest paperwork we are required to complete for domestic violence cases is far more involved than the paperwork we'd complete on any other similar assault. In my department a normal run-of-the-mill simple assault would take one officer about 30 minutes to process. Our DOMV cases often involve two or more officers working for about 3 hours. Logical? Not really.

We end up serving as the defacto "agent" for the victim, and sometimes these cases are taken to trial even if the victim refuses to testify (NOTE: I've still never been involved in one of these cases where a conviction has been achieved without the victim's cooperation). I can't see the justice in stripping someone of their 2nd Ammendment rights without even giving them the chance to face their accuser in court.

As others have mentioned, these laws appear to have been passed by lobbyist groups who are attempting to look out for the "poor woman who is afraid to leave her abusive relationship." Honestly, at the risk of sounding completely insensitive, I don't really feel any great pain of sympathy for the victim who has been hit more than one time, and still hasn't decided to leave the idiot who is hitting them. If you continually get beaten in your relationship, and you refuse to leave the person who is beating you, then you are a bigger idiot than he/she is. Life involves some degree of accountability, and you need to be able to stand up for yourself at some point. I'm more than willing to help the victim of these crimes, but I hate trying to help the people who are too dumb to help themselves.

Moreover, beyond my professional involvement with the DOMV segment of the judicial system, I've seen these cases eat away at the rights of other people who probably never did anything wrong. In one case I know of another police officer (family friend) in another state who was accussed of DOMV by his wife. She was angry with him and told him that he couldn't leave the house. When he said that he was leaving anyway, she told him that she'd call the police if he left. After he left, she called dispatch and claimed that he had punched her. He ended up being arrested. She later admitted that she made this story up, and from knowing this family I'd be willing to bet my left arm that he had NEVER touched her, ever. Anyway, it cost them about $5,000 in legal fees just to sort this situation out, and he nearly lost his job as a result of her irrational and fictitious accusation.

Again, we've simply taken these laws too far, and the ramifications of these cases are very far reaching when it comes to gun rights! I do believe that the evidence I've seen in my career suggests that MANY of the people who have been accused of these crimes are in-fact guilty, and I believe that many of them are despicable cowards. But, I don't believe that we are going down a good road by having this double standard in the legal system. An assault is an assault, a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor, and a felony is a felony.
 
I just wanted to add something, quickly.

I'm not a cop, but I've known of and heard of some pretty f'ed up scenario's involving a mentally unstable female attacking a mentally stable male, and HE be the one arrested, and convicted of a crime, thus having is rights revoked.

One particular case, a young couple think 17-19. The girl, despite her being under age, managed to get ahold of some alcohol, got drunk, and went on a rampage about what a dirty lying cheating piece of scum(not her exact words) he was. Se ten began to throw things at him, hit him, and finally pounced on him and tried to choke him. He fougt back to te mere extent of holding her arms to keep from being hit and strangled, and then held her down in self defense. e never struck her or used any excessive force, in fact, I think he could've used more.

Anyway, when she finally "calmed down", she called 911, reported that he was beating her and had scratced and bruises to prove it. Of course se did have scratces and bruises, but they were all inflicted by herself, during her psychotic attack on him.

There were witnesses, but unfortunately, they were her friends, and lied for her.

There were witnesses to his character who testified on his behalf that he is not the kind of person to put his hands on a female in anger, in fact he respected women to a fault, clearly. Yet, it seems apparent that 5 or 6 female EYEwitnesses over-rule the testimony of just as many more mentally stable and socially respectable character witnesses, whose genders by the way were both male and female.

He cannot own a firearm, he cannot vote, he spent 6 months in jail for aggravated assault and battery, and somehow supplying alcohol to a minor.. and did I mention he was also underage and did not give it to her?

Another similar case, where a female beat herself and blamed it on her male counterpart, with witnesses present. The only thing that saved his ass, were the stable-minded witnesses, of which SHE had not a single one, and by the time se sobered up, she could not remember what happened except that "he beat her sooo bad!"... she deleiberately beat her own face against a wall and floor, and I DID witness that one.
The most hilariously sickening thing I've ever seen.

Don't even get me started on "Lifetime" or "Oprah"... the two major female victimization networks. I know it makes me sound sexist, but you could ask any of my female friends(and most are female), I LOVE women and often treat them the respect you'd expect at Sunday mass. But I'll be d@m^ed if I go for the "victim" card. It's an easy dirty trick to screw someone's life up out of pure spite of not getting things your way exactly... or just being plain nuts.
 
Recently, my friend was attacked by his wife while he was having dinner. She just walked up behind him and started strangling him. He didn’t want to press charges so he documented it with 3 friends, "one was his attorney". If it ever happens again she is on notice that she will go to jail. He did not touch her, he just stood up and broke the hold she had on him. Much shouting went on and he made it clear if you do this again I will prosecute you. She has been married before and has had these temper tantrums in her prior marriages. I felt that this was a good way to handle it as neither one of them can really leave the domicile due to financial restrictions. Besides nothing good will come of it anyway, she admitted she was wrong and life goes on, I think that people are under a lot of stress these days, and everything that is said or done can't be taken so seriously, unless they cause injury. Sometimes the best deterrent is to let friends or relatives know that this behavior went on, this way if it happens again, it's not doubted that it happened before. Everyone should get one chance if they didn't really cause an injury. But I was once told that if I didn't do what a "lady" wanted, she would smack her head into the wall and say I did it.
I called the police ,"when I still lived in NY" and they saw right through it. She then slapped one of the officers when she told her that it was time to leave my house. That was that, they dragged her out in cuffs, "during a snow storm" with a blanket around her. Never once did they question who was telling the truth here, it was very obvious. They Baker acted her, "even though its supposed to not be done by police. The psyche ward called me a few days later and asked if I would pick her up. I said you must have the wrong number. When you are single and bring home a girl from a club or bar, you really need to watch yourself, I had another that refused to leave, until "I called her father" who's number was in her wallet, again with the threats of calling the police if I didn't allow her to stay. I think you are better off going to a hotel unless you know what you are bringing home.
 
Before I get called to the carpet, let me get out in front I have zero tolerence for scumbags who smack women around. That said, in some measure the laws can get a bit kooky. I had a coworker in TX get locked up after his wife hit HIM with a cast iron frying pan. They'd got into a verbal, he went out to the garage to have a smoke and cool off, and she came in after him and clobbered him, more than once. In the process of getting away from her, he put two superficial scrathes on her face. When LE showed up, both of them got taken to jail-he went to the hospital first-because there had been violence done by both parties.

He beat the charges pretty easily, a skull fracture trumps a couple of scratches apparently. What stinks is I asked a friend who was a deputy with a different organization about it, he said basically the cops that responded HAD to take them both. Maybe an answer would be giving some discretion back to the LEOs who respond?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Domestic Violence convictions
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
Zoogster
Z
Lennyjoe
  • Locked
GCA of 1968 and misdemeanor domestic violence Q's
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Lennyjoe
Lennyjoe
S
  • Locked
Domestic Violence?
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
sketcherdown
S
T
  • Locked
Is an arrest for domestic violence enough?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
leadcounsel
L
K
  • Locked
Domestic Violence and CCW??
2
Replies
28
Views
992
R.H. Lee
R
Back
Top