Judge Lee wrote that "we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
The 2A and domestic abuse
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
- Status
Judge Lee wrote that "we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
riverrat38
US Veteran
Where does it say that it's legal to beat your spouse?
Domestic violence does not have to involve physical violence. A friend of my son got a felony domestic violence conviction, and several months of lockup, because he went into "his" house to get what he took to be his stuff. His wife was filing for divorce, and she had custody of the house. She was not at home at the time, and there was no "beating" involved. He should have gotten paper from the court, and been accompanied by a deputy, to get what he was entitled to.
"Paper; I don't need no stinkin paper!"
This was in Washington State, which is a no fault divorce State.
73,
Rick
Last edited:
So he was convicted of burglary, or of violating a TRO?
riverrat38
US Veteran
I suspect it was considered burglary, and that they considered the value of the "loot", but it was considered domestic violence since they had been, or still were, married. Was over two decades ago, and I don't have any source of further info. Just my memory, but I know there was no physical violence.
73,
Rick
73,
Rick
Doug M.
Member
That could be filed as a Residential Burglary with a DV enhancement. (Crime against family or household member, in simple terms.)
I know family law practitioners have a reputation for filing for protective orders (Pawngal, the names vary from state to state but the federal prohibiter requires specific allegations and findings). Doing so without a factual basis is clearly a violation of the ethics rules and should result in Bar discipline, but most Bars don't have the guts to take on that fight. I have strong feelings about it and would absolutely file a criminal case on a lawyer for doing so if we could prove it.
OTOH, there are a lot of really bad people out there who do in fact deserve everything that happens to them. I just filed a charge on such a person yesterday (I'm helping the criminal division with catching up due to short staffing). He was subject to a DVPO, and rightly so, and then tried to buy a gun even though he was a prohibited person (which requires both actual service and a hearing). The feds file maybe at most 1% of those cases, so we file them as attempted UPF and false swearing. (Due to poor drafting of the law, that was not a violation of the order although it should be, so we use alternative paths.) He knew darned well and tried anyway. We should not tolerate that kind of person; he is not of my tribe.
FWIW, the most common form of criminal homicide in the US is from impaired driving, and in many places including here, the penalties are inadequate. The second most common is DV (all family, not just spouse/partner, although they are most of them). The biggest health risk to pregnant women is the father of the child. The DV prohibitor is very much empirically justified.
I know family law practitioners have a reputation for filing for protective orders (Pawngal, the names vary from state to state but the federal prohibiter requires specific allegations and findings). Doing so without a factual basis is clearly a violation of the ethics rules and should result in Bar discipline, but most Bars don't have the guts to take on that fight. I have strong feelings about it and would absolutely file a criminal case on a lawyer for doing so if we could prove it.
OTOH, there are a lot of really bad people out there who do in fact deserve everything that happens to them. I just filed a charge on such a person yesterday (I'm helping the criminal division with catching up due to short staffing). He was subject to a DVPO, and rightly so, and then tried to buy a gun even though he was a prohibited person (which requires both actual service and a hearing). The feds file maybe at most 1% of those cases, so we file them as attempted UPF and false swearing. (Due to poor drafting of the law, that was not a violation of the order although it should be, so we use alternative paths.) He knew darned well and tried anyway. We should not tolerate that kind of person; he is not of my tribe.
FWIW, the most common form of criminal homicide in the US is from impaired driving, and in many places including here, the penalties are inadequate. The second most common is DV (all family, not just spouse/partner, although they are most of them). The biggest health risk to pregnant women is the father of the child. The DV prohibitor is very much empirically justified.
Last edited:
Although as one of the wife's colleges said, "Divorce often causes a special kind of insanity", depriving a citizen of a right based on unproven accusations or worse possible future actions that might occur based on what sometimes happens during other's peoples divorces is WRONG. The One of the reasons 25% of divorces have accusations of DV involved is because of the FACT that such accusations provide powerful leverage in court. Even if it is true in 23% of the cases, when orders depriving rights are applied to the other 2% it is 100% WRONG. Why not just go ahead lock up all men whose wives have filed for divorce based on the fact that some of those men will turn to violence?
It is also a matter of fact that some wives also resort to violence, so lets lock all them up too.
While "statistics" like the one that the biggest health risk to a pregnant woman is the father of the child, or that a high percentage of separations end up having violence, it does not mean that because a man's pregnant wife is divorcing him he is going to assault her and therefore he should be disarmed.
Some one should assemble the data to show the percentage of divorces that have false accusations involved. According to my ex I descended from a relationship between Attila the Hun and Mary I
Just because it is a fact that 33% the males of one race have been convicted of a felony at some point in their lives is absolutely no reason to deny all of the males of that race the right to own a gun. The heads of gun grabbing liberals would explode at the very idea.
Applying laws depriving rights based on statistics is never going to be correct or actually constitutional. Even doing so without 100% COMPLETE due process is pretty shaky.
It is also a matter of fact that some wives also resort to violence, so lets lock all them up too. While "statistics" like the one that the biggest health risk to a pregnant woman is the father of the child, or that a high percentage of separations end up having violence, it does not mean that because a man's pregnant wife is divorcing him he is going to assault her and therefore he should be disarmed.
Some one should assemble the data to show the percentage of divorces that have false accusations involved. According to my ex I descended from a relationship between Attila the Hun and Mary I
Just because it is a fact that 33% the males of one race have been convicted of a felony at some point in their lives is absolutely no reason to deny all of the males of that race the right to own a gun. The heads of gun grabbing liberals would explode at the very idea.
Applying laws depriving rights based on statistics is never going to be correct or actually constitutional. Even doing so without 100% COMPLETE due process is pretty shaky.
Last edited:
For me, this is a tender subject. I see the problem with DV and ROs, is an unspoken institutional prejudice.
For a few months before the accident that disabled me, and for almost a year after it while I was barely ambulatory, I had to flee my home because I was the victim of both physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. Every time I went to the local law enforcement office, I was told to go to the superior court the next business day to seek a TRO. I ended up going back because I could better protect my children there. That happened between 6 to 8 times before TSHTF. Every time the LEOs had difficulty accepting that the man could be the victim. Even after a PRO was issued, the police and state agencies that were drawn in had difficulty accepting that a disabled man was the victim. I was later told by a victim advocate that every time that I approached the police , I could/should have been issued an ETRO.
Until the institutional bias towards who could be the victim of DV is removed, I can't support any legislation linking DV with the loss of 2A rights.
For a few months before the accident that disabled me, and for almost a year after it while I was barely ambulatory, I had to flee my home because I was the victim of both physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. Every time I went to the local law enforcement office, I was told to go to the superior court the next business day to seek a TRO. I ended up going back because I could better protect my children there. That happened between 6 to 8 times before TSHTF. Every time the LEOs had difficulty accepting that the man could be the victim. Even after a PRO was issued, the police and state agencies that were drawn in had difficulty accepting that a disabled man was the victim. I was later told by a victim advocate that every time that I approached the police , I could/should have been issued an ETRO.
Until the institutional bias towards who could be the victim of DV is removed, I can't support any legislation linking DV with the loss of 2A rights.
StrawHat
Member
When did denying convicted felons their constitutional rights become common? Once the sentence is served, are they not restored?
Kevin
Kevin
2A rights are not restored to felons. In some states, those convicted of certain misdemeanors also permanently lose their 2A constitutional right.
1789. The Constitution expressly allows death sentences; lesser sentences are fine if neither cruel nor unusual.
Doug M.
Member
*Although as one of the wife's colleges said, "Divorce often causes a special kind of insanity", depriving a citizen of a right based on unproven accusations or worse possible future actions that might occur based on what sometimes happens during other's peoples divorces is WRONG. The One of the reasons 25% of divorces have accusations of DV involved is because of the FACT that such accusations provide powerful leverage in court. Even if it is true in 23% of the cases, when orders depriving rights are applied to the other 2% it is 100% WRONG. Why not just go ahead lock up all men whose wives have filed for divorce based on the fact that some of those men will turn to violence?
Some one should assemble the data to show the percentage of divorces that have false accusations involved. According to my ex I descended from a relationship between Attila the Hun and Mary I
You are correct - the people, including lawyers, who make these false allegations should get hammered too. They hurt the system and cause damage to the real victims because they are gutting the belief in what does happen to some. I do refer to family law as "raw nerves and dirty underwear law" for a reason.
On the other hand: For roughly the last month, I have been helping our criminal division try to catch up on referred charges. The first part of that has been a case load that my elected boss has been covering due to staffing shortage; he should no more have a case load any more than the Sheriff should be expected to go on patrol full time after running his office. That case load is designed for 50 filed cases, the most complex and unpleasant (felony sex and DV offenses). As of a couple of days ago, it is over 2.5 X that, and I also weeded out a few pretty weak/outright bogus claims. Most truly decent people have no idea the level of truly vile behavior that occurs and we see. There is a reason for my generalized distaste for interacting with most people and for the really grim dark humor that pervades our part of the system. And then there are the unfortunate public defenders who get some of these cases, and thus have to interact with these offenders; no thanks.
Paul in Nevada
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 1,020
That, or it's because of the statistically high rates of domestic violence among LEO.
Where would I find those rates published? No 40 year old self-report surveys, please.
Last edited:
The most definitive and most oft cited studies were done in 1991 and 1992 . . .
Spurdann
Member
A misdemeanor of any sort should never cause the loss of God given rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Yeah, I put TROs in the same category as signs at buildings (schools, etc.) prohibiting guns on their premises. Absolutely useless in actually preventing anything, but helpful if further action/prosecution is needed.
Doug M.
Member
Washinton has expanded the list of misdemeanors that impact firearms rights. Other than DV, I suspect that most of them are feel good stuff without any empirical foundation.
If it is a God give right, what gives any man the authority to restrict or eliminate them at all?
YeshuaIsa53
Member
You said a mouthful there.
Arguably, nothing.
That said, most of us have accepted that to live in a civil society, those God given rights can be abrogated when an individual does significant harm to others, or to the community... i.e. a felony.
And when I say 'felony', I mean a malum in se offense: rape, robbery, murder, etc.
Unfortunately there are those who believe in abrogating our rights over malum prohibitum offenses, misdemeanors, or just because it hurts their feelings/sensibilities.
The DV crimes being discussed in this thread cover the spectrum, and the courts have finally realized that there are some offenses that don't rise to the level where rights should be abrogated. There are others that do. And everyone deserves due process before they lose any rights.
- Status
