Albuquerque Shooting

@dyslexia,

I don't know either, but it just seems that when a right is lost, the legal process should involve a court conviction. I do seem to recall that the fed firearms purchase form does ask if you are under indictment or information for a felony, so I just don't know.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

roger wrote:

You mean, based on some sort of charges, or based on conviction of a felony.

actually I don't know. I did know a cop whose wife charged him with domestic violence and since he was no longer able to carry a gun, he was fired. whether he was just charged or convicted I don't know.

apparently conviction is required which leads to the legal problem of defining domestic violence. is self-defense grounds for domestic violence? and the beat goes on.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Tell me HighSeas: Do you think those with a history of Domestic Violence should be allowed to keep their firearms?

most accepted policy in domestic violence cases is to charge both parties. should the non-offender loss his/her right to keep their firearms?

That's no policy I am familiar with here in Wisconsin. Here, the straight thinking victim of domestic violence will seek a restraining order, and firearm restrictions are standard restrictions on restraining orders, which typically last for 3 years. If anything, the victim should be encouraged to pack some heat.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

roger wrote:

You mean, based on some sort of charges, or based on conviction of a felony.

actually I don't know. I did know a cop whose wife charged him with domestic violence and since he was no longer able to carry a gun, he was fired. whether he was just charged or convicted I don't know.

apparently conviction is required which leads to the legal problem of defining domestic violence. is self-defense grounds for domestic violence? and the beat goes on.

The restraining order scenario I just described would apply regardless of whether or not a conviction, let alone a felony conviction was rendered. The burden of proof for a restraining order is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, but the firearm restriction is just as standard. The person restrained gets his day in court, but the threshold is lower than in criminal cases because a restraining order is a preventive measure against what a person may do, rather than a punishment what he/she has already done.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

apparently conviction is required which leads to the legal problem of defining domestic violence. is self-defense grounds for domestic violence? and the beat goes on.

Not if you hire the right firm to defend your right to defend yourself. Wink

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

so, the Bush doctrine of preemption applies to gun ownership in more ways than we originally thought.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

so, the Bush doctrine of preemption applies to gun ownership in more ways than we originally thought.

Not hardly. If a family court commissioner (who spends his days knee deep in domestic horror) deems you too dangerous to own a weapon for a few years, because he's seen persuasive enough evidence to warrant his reviewable decision; I'm inclined to give him, rather than you, the benefit of the doubt.
Wink

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

some of the most violence cases of domestic abuse I've ever seen the female was the perp (including gun use)

1 Reply

It is most unfortunate that the victims were not in possession
of defensive emergency equipment. Every predatory event
is a contest of power. The predator had a monopoly thereof; sad.
Supporters of gun control must be elated
that all victims were in full compliance with ALL gun control laws.

Qua loss of rights of self defense,
that jurisprudence evolved before HELLER, let alone McDONALD.

The USSC will define the boundaries as it sees fit.

David

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

some of the most violence cases of domestic abuse I've ever seen the female was the perp (including gun use)

I don't see how that changes the equation one iota. (S)he who is deemed dangerous enough to warrant a restraining order, should be detered from possessing firearms.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

... just got so damn annoyed at all the usual leftist suspects piling on with their compulsive anti-gun babbling. Enough! Enough of this freedom of speech thing!

0 Replies

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

Yeah, but can you still pick your teeth with your gun?

I think Highseas is JTT. Same brutal way with words, same policy of attacking out of nowhere, same sneering tone.

Nah...separate but evil.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Butrflynet wrote:

I haven't posted a thing about a car accident. I didn't even know about it until your weak attempt to add drama to the thread. You are hallucinating.

There is indeed a link in the post I did a few minutes ago with the update from the news conference on the number of people who were killed by the shooter.

Ignore her...she's in some kind of frenzy.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

dyslexia wrote:

some of the most violence cases of domestic abuse I've ever seen the female
was the perp (including gun use)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I don't see how that changes the equation one iota.
(S)he who is eemed dangerous enough to warrant a restraining order,
should be detered from possessing firearms.

That will not work, unless she chooses to be law-abiding.

David

1 Reply

It is my wish and hope that,
before they harm anyone,
all the angry gun-nuts of these United States
would take their most select weapon,
slide in a single shell and,
doing the rest of us all the best of all of favors,
blow their brains out
all over the their living room walls.

Or do it out in a parking lot.
Joe(that would make the clean-up easier)Nation

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

True enough. But (s)he frequently is while not in a state of rage. So frequently in fact that premeditated warrants a more serious charge. Idea

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Careful Joe. They
call me crazy when I talk like that!

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Careful Joe. They
call me crazy when I talk like that!

Yes, bill, but you have the advantage of not being crazy. For me, I recognize my condition and relish it.

Joe(I'm going to take a tireiron to anyone who says different)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Sez you on not crazy, and lol on tire iron!

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

It is my wish and hope that,
before they harm anyone,
all the angry gun-nuts of these United States
would take their most select weapon,
slide in a single shell and,
doing the rest of us all the best of all of favors,
blow their brains out
all over the their living room walls.

Or do it out in a parking lot.
Joe(that would make the clean-up easier)Nation

Oh goddess...that's Bill's crazy
take one for the team" idea.

Problem is, the angry gun nuts think everyone else is nuts, so they'd more likely take (at least) one from OUR team first.

Anyway, I have to object on philosophical and ethical grounds.

0 Replies

Albuquerque Shooting

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know