Supreme Court Decision - Guns & Domestic Violence
- Thread starter JohnSW
- Start date
jag312
Member
There's Domestic Violence, and there's Domestic Violence. I think some prosecutors are too eager to prosecute a case that has no merit, and some guy gets talked into pleading guilty to settle a case. A case involving one of my friends.
An argument started over their 13 year old son who wanted a .22 rifle. My friend said that he was not mature enough for a gun. The kid throw a temper tantrum and even threw a full can of Coke through a wall. Now the mother gets involved, siding with the kid. Now the argument escalates from father & son to husband & wife. The argument gets violent with the wife breaking and smashing things. She cuts her hand on a piece of broken glass. He leaves to go to his office to get a first aid kit to bandage her hand. She calls the police and tells them that her husband has a gun at his office, and he is coming back to fix her. When he returns with the first aid kit, she tells him that the police are on their way to arrest him. He decides to leave.
I read the police reports. Three cars roll up to the house. They see two figures in the driveway. Figure #1 is standing over Figure #2 who is on the ground. Figure #1 is beating and kicking Figure #2. My friend is the one on the ground with his wife beating and kicking the living stuff out of him. She actually managed to break his arm. Who gets arrested? You guessed it; my friend. Later, the District Attorney's Office wants to prosecute him for Domestic Violence. They tell him they will charge it as a misdemeanor and probation if he pleads guilty, but a felony and State prison if he pleads not guilty. His lawyer responds that they will take it to a jury trial. Luckily, someone in the DA's Office decided to drop the charges because it would be difficult to prove Domestic Violence to a jury by claiming that he hit his arm against her foot with such force that his arm broke, and that he hit his face against her fists and feet causing the self-inflicted injuries.
You think this is a joke? It happened to my friend when he lived in Santa Cruz County, California. Santa Cruz County is run by the looniest of the loony leftists, who are mainly graduates of University of California, Santa Cruz, most taking classes from the honorable Professor Angela Davis. I could say more about Santa Cruz County, but it would not be appropriate. What happened with the son who caused the argument? He was told about the Marine Military Academy in Harlingen, Texas, if he needed help to start getting his act together.
An argument started over their 13 year old son who wanted a .22 rifle. My friend said that he was not mature enough for a gun. The kid throw a temper tantrum and even threw a full can of Coke through a wall. Now the mother gets involved, siding with the kid. Now the argument escalates from father & son to husband & wife. The argument gets violent with the wife breaking and smashing things. She cuts her hand on a piece of broken glass. He leaves to go to his office to get a first aid kit to bandage her hand. She calls the police and tells them that her husband has a gun at his office, and he is coming back to fix her. When he returns with the first aid kit, she tells him that the police are on their way to arrest him. He decides to leave.
I read the police reports. Three cars roll up to the house. They see two figures in the driveway. Figure #1 is standing over Figure #2 who is on the ground. Figure #1 is beating and kicking Figure #2. My friend is the one on the ground with his wife beating and kicking the living stuff out of him. She actually managed to break his arm. Who gets arrested? You guessed it; my friend. Later, the District Attorney's Office wants to prosecute him for Domestic Violence. They tell him they will charge it as a misdemeanor and probation if he pleads guilty, but a felony and State prison if he pleads not guilty. His lawyer responds that they will take it to a jury trial. Luckily, someone in the DA's Office decided to drop the charges because it would be difficult to prove Domestic Violence to a jury by claiming that he hit his arm against her foot with such force that his arm broke, and that he hit his face against her fists and feet causing the self-inflicted injuries.
You think this is a joke? It happened to my friend when he lived in Santa Cruz County, California. Santa Cruz County is run by the looniest of the loony leftists, who are mainly graduates of University of California, Santa Cruz, most taking classes from the honorable Professor Angela Davis. I could say more about Santa Cruz County, but it would not be appropriate. What happened with the son who caused the argument? He was told about the Marine Military Academy in Harlingen, Texas, if he needed help to start getting his act together.
Item 1 - this was a 6 to 2 ruling at SCOTUS. That's pretty substantial, especially in light of the fact that the dissenters were one each of the so-called conservative and liberal justices. The majority six also included both sides so it's not going to be overturned anytime soon.
The Lautenburg Amendment, as I believe it is called, made domestic violence grounds for the loss of gun rights. It's been around a long time now and this upholds it very clearly. Basically, what the Court is saying is that domestic violence is considered to be so egregious in the eyes of the law that it does not have to rise to the level of a felony to deny someone his or her Constitutional rights. America has come a long way in the way it looks at domestic violence so if you're involved with other people in your home (which probably includes temporary visitors, too) the law is telling you that if you like your guns control your hands.
Remember, if you are under a restraining order in a domestic violence situation your lose your gun rights WITHOUT a conviction!
Item 2 - the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and MacDonald clearly left the door open to what were loosely described as "reasonable restrictions". Domestic violence has obviously been put into the reasonable restriction category by the Court. So watch your hands. Period.
Item 3 - depending on where you live, this denial of gun rights is pretty broad. Someone I know sent one text message too many to a woman and she went to the police claiming that he was harassing her and until he straightened it out the police had his one handgun. This was in NYC but, still, it could happen almost anywhere. Learn to behave. The government likes taking guns away from us. We must avoid this and good deportment is a solution.
The Lautenburg Amendment, as I believe it is called, made domestic violence grounds for the loss of gun rights. It's been around a long time now and this upholds it very clearly. Basically, what the Court is saying is that domestic violence is considered to be so egregious in the eyes of the law that it does not have to rise to the level of a felony to deny someone his or her Constitutional rights. America has come a long way in the way it looks at domestic violence so if you're involved with other people in your home (which probably includes temporary visitors, too) the law is telling you that if you like your guns control your hands.
Remember, if you are under a restraining order in a domestic violence situation your lose your gun rights WITHOUT a conviction!
Item 2 - the Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and MacDonald clearly left the door open to what were loosely described as "reasonable restrictions". Domestic violence has obviously been put into the reasonable restriction category by the Court. So watch your hands. Period.
Item 3 - depending on where you live, this denial of gun rights is pretty broad. Someone I know sent one text message too many to a woman and she went to the police claiming that he was harassing her and until he straightened it out the police had his one handgun. This was in NYC but, still, it could happen almost anywhere. Learn to behave. The government likes taking guns away from us. We must avoid this and good deportment is a solution.
handejector
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,134
- Reaction score
- 47,045
I do not condone domestic violence.
That said, I've lived long enough to see many men lose their rights for some events that I just don't think they should lose them for.
Just suppose-
Your wife has developed a pill and alcohol problem in middle age. Rehabbed twice, but slides back into it. As the years have dragged on, she's become nastier to deal with.
She becomes convinced you're cheating on her.
She confronts you one morning as you head out through the kitchen for work. You calmly deny it. She keeps ranting, and you really NEED to get to work since you're still paying off the last rehab bills. You say we'll discuss this later. You NEED to get to work, and she's between you and the door. So, you turn to go the other way.
She goes ballistic. She's around in front of you slapping and trying to scratch your face.
You stay cool, grab her firmly by the upper arms, move her out of your path, and leave.
She continues to boil and tosses another shot and a pill. She decides to "fix you good". She kneads and twists her upper arms where your hands were a few minutes ago. Since she's feeling no pain, she smacks her cheekbone against the corner of the fridge.
Then she calls 911.
She's got some faint bruises on her upper arms and the skin is still pink from her twisting them. The cheek has a nice little mouse and some color.
The female rookie cop that watched her stepdad pound her Mama for 15 years is very understanding. She needs to know where you work.
Cop: "What happened at your house this morning?"
You're going to be honest enough to state you grabbed her by the arms while she was slapping you, but you didn't grab her hard enough to leave bruises, and you know you didn't smack her.
You state she's lying. (cops have never heard that before, so really stress that)
Uh-huh.
Your ride is GUARANTEED.
So is the loss of your guns.
That could never happen, though, could it?
No one here has ever had, or known a friend who had a nasty divorce, have you?
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
/////////////////////////////
1:30 am Saturday. Mom is out of town visiting the sick MIL.
Stepson, just under 18, 6'2", 215 lb linebacker, comes in drunk out of his mind. His girlfriend just dumped him and he hit a mailbox with his new car.
He's kicking the furniture around and you take exception to his behavior. He then decides to express how much he has really loathed you through the years. He's still kicking the furniture around and implying he'd like to show you how he really feels about you.
The 15 year old half sister (your daughter) is awake by now and wades in trying to calm him down. He's now cursing her as the spoiled favorite of both you parents. You wonder if he's capable of knocking her around???
He's screaming louder and getting more threatening and inviting you to man up.
DON'T lay hands on that sweet, troubled child, or you lose your guns.
The cops can be there in 30 minutes or less.
Whatchagonnado?
That said, I've lived long enough to see many men lose their rights for some events that I just don't think they should lose them for.
Just suppose-
Your wife has developed a pill and alcohol problem in middle age. Rehabbed twice, but slides back into it. As the years have dragged on, she's become nastier to deal with.
She becomes convinced you're cheating on her.
She confronts you one morning as you head out through the kitchen for work. You calmly deny it. She keeps ranting, and you really NEED to get to work since you're still paying off the last rehab bills. You say we'll discuss this later. You NEED to get to work, and she's between you and the door. So, you turn to go the other way.
She goes ballistic. She's around in front of you slapping and trying to scratch your face.
You stay cool, grab her firmly by the upper arms, move her out of your path, and leave.
She continues to boil and tosses another shot and a pill. She decides to "fix you good". She kneads and twists her upper arms where your hands were a few minutes ago. Since she's feeling no pain, she smacks her cheekbone against the corner of the fridge.
Then she calls 911.
She's got some faint bruises on her upper arms and the skin is still pink from her twisting them. The cheek has a nice little mouse and some color.
The female rookie cop that watched her stepdad pound her Mama for 15 years is very understanding. She needs to know where you work.
Cop: "What happened at your house this morning?"
You're going to be honest enough to state you grabbed her by the arms while she was slapping you, but you didn't grab her hard enough to leave bruises, and you know you didn't smack her.
You state she's lying. (cops have never heard that before, so really stress that)
Uh-huh.
Your ride is GUARANTEED.
So is the loss of your guns.
That could never happen, though, could it?
No one here has ever had, or known a friend who had a nasty divorce, have you?
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
/////////////////////////////
1:30 am Saturday. Mom is out of town visiting the sick MIL.
Stepson, just under 18, 6'2", 215 lb linebacker, comes in drunk out of his mind. His girlfriend just dumped him and he hit a mailbox with his new car.
He's kicking the furniture around and you take exception to his behavior. He then decides to express how much he has really loathed you through the years. He's still kicking the furniture around and implying he'd like to show you how he really feels about you.
The 15 year old half sister (your daughter) is awake by now and wades in trying to calm him down. He's now cursing her as the spoiled favorite of both you parents. You wonder if he's capable of knocking her around???
He's screaming louder and getting more threatening and inviting you to man up.
DON'T lay hands on that sweet, troubled child, or you lose your guns.
The cops can be there in 30 minutes or less.
Whatchagonnado?
I've seen it happen for much, much less . . .
LouisianaJoe
Member
My brother in law received a surprise. His wife decided that she wanted a divorce. Before letting him know this, she had a friend punch her in the face and she then went to the sheriff and filed charges, and then filed for a divorce. He was arrested and then evicted from his house. It took a couple of years but he ended up getting his house back, custody of his minor son and the Judge made her pay child support.
Most cases like this do not have the same ending.
Most cases like this do not have the same ending.
cussedemgun
Member
One more 'opinion' that has no basis in law
A truism, "we have the best legal system MONEY CAN BUY"
In a free land, you are guilty of "what you did" not "what you could do"
Most of the behavior discussed as DV is truly 'emotional' or 'mental health' issues.
Most all DV complaints are "she said - he said" cases & IMHO both should be booked, after all it still takes two to make a fight. Police should stick to their job & let the judge do his!
A truism, "we have the best legal system MONEY CAN BUY"
In a free land, you are guilty of "what you did" not "what you could do"
Most of the behavior discussed as DV is truly 'emotional' or 'mental health' issues.
Most all DV complaints are "she said - he said" cases & IMHO both should be booked, after all it still takes two to make a fight. Police should stick to their job & let the judge do his!
Agree 100%.
I know someone convicted of using a stolen credit card, a bad mistake he owned up to, and he's a felon.
Is he a threat to society with a firearm? I think not. If he were a danger why'd they let him out?
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,565
- Reaction score
- 6,327
I would be more concerned about this category than the person whose $250 check bounced in 1982 (felony threshold where I worked at that time).
The fact that we have moved so much non-violent crime into the felony category is another problem with the whole "prohibited person" concept.
Last edited:
...and a person with a suspicious mind might theorize that this is the actual REASON so many non-violent crimes have been moved into the felony category.
One might be persuaded to believe that it is part of the anti-gun agenda to reduce our numbers by prohibiting as many people as possible from owning guns.
But only if you were the type with a suspicious mind...
This issue hit the Supreme Court a few years back.
The Court found it was Constitutional even though the misdemeanor domestic violence conviction was before the law in question was enacted and the person (I think it was a plea deal) could not have known that he was giving up his rights under the Second Amendment
One of my least favorite Supreme Court decisions
Last edited:
I have seen a lot of women bring charges against their man for abuse that never happened. I have also seen men plead to it with no jail time attached just so they can get it over with.
Bad law. Very bad law and another back door to gun control.
Bad law. Very bad law and another back door to gun control.
Jury of your peers
Please show us where there is a right to a trial by a jury of our peers is a part of our legal system.
Thanks in advance
tb
Please show us where there is a right to a trial by a jury of our peers is a part of our legal system.
Thanks in advance
tb
The most disturbing thing about all of this is you or I could be assaulted by a known gang member and receive serious injuries and then a prosecutor, could work out a plea deal with the defendant's lawyer for a guilty verdict for simple assault and the thug would not be a restricted person. Where's the justice in that?
Erich
Member
While it was part of the common law since before we were a nation, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly said so in 1879:
"The very idea of a jury is that it is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds." Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 308 (1879).
Last edited:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
(Marbury vs Madison, 5 US 137,174,176. 1803
Also Norton vs Shelby County
In 1941 Harlan F Sloan 12th Chief Justice: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
(16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177)
The "law of the land" can be voided at any time by a jury should that jury properly disregard a judges improper instruction that a jurors decision of guilty or not guilty be based solely on the evidence. The law itself may be voided by the jurors; a hung jury.
That's why it is so important to serve jury duty. Not only is the defendant on trial, the law (of which he is accused of violating) is on trial as well.
(Marbury vs Madison, 5 US 137,174,176. 1803
Also Norton vs Shelby County
In 1941 Harlan F Sloan 12th Chief Justice: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
(16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177)
The "law of the land" can be voided at any time by a jury should that jury properly disregard a judges improper instruction that a jurors decision of guilty or not guilty be based solely on the evidence. The law itself may be voided by the jurors; a hung jury.
That's why it is so important to serve jury duty. Not only is the defendant on trial, the law (of which he is accused of violating) is on trial as well.
Last edited:
I agree that jury nullification is not used nearly often enough. Unfortunately must judges refuse to inform the jury. I can't remember the details, but I recall reading a case where a judge held a jury in contempt for citing jury nullification and refusing to convict. My memory is very hazy, I don't remember the case so it may have never happened.
Ohio's self defense laws are strange - self defense is an affirmative defense (the burden is on the defendant to prove he met all of the conditions). An Ohio lawyer wrote a small handbook covering self defense laws, and mentioned a case that came down to jury nullification. The judge specifically forbade the jury from considering self defense (which doesn't seem appropriate to me), so it became a jury nullification case.
Indiana code recognizes the jury's right to consider nullification.
In the original Gun Control Act (GCA), government employees were exempt from the GCA. However, the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment, amended Title 18 U.S.C. section 925 to deny this official use exemption for individuals convicted of misdemeanors involving domestic violence.14 This applies to Active, Reserve and Civilian employees of the government. Issuing a weapon to a soldier who has a qualifying conviction for domestic violence exposes commanders, armorers and soldiers to felony criminal prosecution under Lautenberg. This places command in an untenable position.
Oddly enough, this only applies to small arms. Major military weapons systems (aircraft, tanks,missiles) were defined as not covered by the amendment. Unlike some felonies, there are no waiver provisions for individuals entering the military that have been convicted of domestic violence offenses. Lautenberg does not mention felony domestic violence, as crazy as it sounds, under the GCA, the official use exemption for individuals convicted of a felony still exists.
Oddly enough, this only applies to small arms. Major military weapons systems (aircraft, tanks,missiles) were defined as not covered by the amendment. Unlike some felonies, there are no waiver provisions for individuals entering the military that have been convicted of domestic violence offenses. Lautenberg does not mention felony domestic violence, as crazy as it sounds, under the GCA, the official use exemption for individuals convicted of a felony still exists.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,565
- Reaction score
- 6,327
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Since we have no nobility or other classes in this country, a peer is simply a citizen. No star chamber, no mandatory bench trials, the right to trial by jury can only mean a jury composed of peers since "all men are created equal".
At least, that's the theory. If you are not registered to vote, you may not consider the voters from whose ranks jurors are called your peers. Too bad.
Last edited:
Sorry. I have zero sympathy.
If someone has a domestic violence conviction they no longer deserve to carry a firearm and they should be regarded as a prohibited person. Why should anyone with that kind of anger management issue be trusted carrying a firearm?
Similarly, I don't have any sympathy for someone who stole a credit card or was convicted of a similar non violent felony. It speaks to a lack of moral character.
Besides, most states have procedures in place to set aside a conviction for a first offender and expunge their record if they can keep their nose clean. If they can't manage that, they still don't deserve to be carrying a firearm.
If someone has a domestic violence conviction they no longer deserve to carry a firearm and they should be regarded as a prohibited person. Why should anyone with that kind of anger management issue be trusted carrying a firearm?
Similarly, I don't have any sympathy for someone who stole a credit card or was convicted of a similar non violent felony. It speaks to a lack of moral character.
Besides, most states have procedures in place to set aside a conviction for a first offender and expunge their record if they can keep their nose clean. If they can't manage that, they still don't deserve to be carrying a firearm.
Similar threads
