Smoke weed, beat your spouse AND possess guns lawfully

I think there's a "bigger picture" issue here.
In my opinion, there are those in authority who want to achieve large, widespread gun control using the "gasoline on fire" approach.
The thinking might go like this:
"You want your guns? Fine! Everyone get guns!"

Then, when really bad things happen, it'll be no problem passing sweeping gun bans.
We are witnessing such a moral decay, and such a widespread tolerance for the total collapse in personal responsibility in contemporary society, that such a ruling is just asking for trouble. That's about the only context I can think of where the logic of these rulings makes any sense.
 
I don't believe in these "enhancement" crimes. Violence is violence, period. If an assault of a stranger is not a felony or takes away constitutional rights for a lifetime even after you done your time and paid your fines, then the same level of violence against a brother, sister, ex girlfriend, wife, adult child, etc should NOT result in lose of a constitutional right. Period.

Furthermore, most DV cases don't involve some 95lb poor defensive woman. A man can be charged with DV for throwing a pillow, spitting, pushing, grabbing, holding, plucking, tossing a cup of water, etc, at woman or even a male family member even if that person is an active participant or even an aggressor. The bar for a DV charge is extremely low, and doesn't involve beating a poor defenseless woman half to death the overwhelming majority of the time like the antigunners and feminist like to protray. Most men are idiots who want to be white knights, and a lot of women are the instigators, manipulators, and are the violent ones. These women know that with a few tears and their word alone will have other women, white knights, and the law on their side.

Almost two decades ago when my ex and I were going through a custody dispute, she falsely got a restraining order against me to prevent me from picking up our son who she was keeping from me from the babysitter while she was at work. Law enforcement already told he that she could not stop me from seeing my child as there was no visitation or custody order at the time, so she lied by saying I threatened her over the phone. In my state, a man can not even see the affidavit of what he was accused of doing via the protective order until the day of court. At court, the female gets a free court appointed lawyer on her side representing her while men must pay for representation out of pocket. I was served at work and instantly lost firearm rights without even knowing why until weeks later.

Even if a girlfriend or spouse is actively attacking a man, and a man pushes, hits, or touches her, they're both going to jail for DV in my state. LE have a policy that they'll arrest first and let the judge sort everything out later. When it's he said she said with a crying female, chances are the woman will be believed regardless of the evidence. Take Jonathan Majors and Johnny Depp for a prime example. This is why weak minded men, aka white knights who want to take away Constitutional rights for life over a misdemeanor and because it makes them feel more manly by virtue signaling pisses me off.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a "bigger picture" issue here.
In my opinion, there are those in authority who want to achieve large, widespread gun control using the "gasoline on fire" approach.
The thinking might go like this:
"You want your guns? Fine! Everyone get guns!"

Then, when really bad things happen, it'll be no problem passing sweeping gun bans.
We are witnessing such a moral decay, and such a widespread tolerance for the total collapse in personal responsibility in contemporary society, that such a ruling is just asking for trouble. That's about the only context I can think of where the logic of these rulings makes any sense.

You are wrong. It's not the anties who are returning gun rights to those who have done their time or who are on recreational drugs while not violating any other laws or rights. It's pro gun, freedom, and U.S. Constitution groups who have taken cases to federal judges and SCOTUS to fight for these rights.

The logic of anties is to use the safety of women, children, suicides, red flag laws, recreational drug use, etc as a Trojan horse, so to speak, to take away gun rights in the name of safety. It's the same exact playback and rhetoric that has been used in Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia, etc to ultimately take an inch at a time towards complete disarmament.
 
In my almost a decade in the Public Defender's Office, I saw far more Domestic Violence cases than I ever wanted to. And I got to represent these lovely guys whose wives were picking on them to get an edge in the divorce. Yeah, right. That happens in maybe 10% of the cases.

Spousal abuse is a big problem in this country. And folks are always looking for an easy fix. It was a driving force in the 19th Amendment. Men who beat their wives are not men, they are mentally unstable jerks. They are also great liars and very good at manipulating their wives. Every day that passes after the assault increases the likelihood that the woman will drop the complaint.
There are no easy fixes. One of the problems is manipulative spouses can usually beg forgiveness given a little time, and get the case dismissed, and go for the next round in the bout.
Police Officers have to intervene at all times of the day or night at high risk of serious personnel harm while judges and victim advocates sit around and dream up easy fixes so they can work from nine to five.
The gun confiscation issue can protect the Officers, maybe. But the 5th Amendment is there to protect the gun owner from "seizure without due process of law." Divorces can be ugly, nasty affairs with a lot of truth-bending going on from both sides. But, seldom do they involve the brutal beatings and murders that too often happen. We should have 24-hour domestic violence magistrates to hear the facts from witnesses and the victim and provide the due process of law.
Lots of folks out there should make better choices on who they marry. During a divorce, men should realize if they lash out by not giving the wife money to feed the kids and pay the bills, she is going retaliate with visitation
 
I can honestly say I've never tried weed and at 77 y/o have no plans to.
It helps with certain levels of pain/discomfort and sleeping issues. You don't need to get blasted to take the edge off. Matter of fact, I think the pot sold today is way over the line as far as THC levels go.

I miss Panama Red :)
 
If you want to confiscate someone's firearms, get a felony conviction.

Not hard today. They just keep making more and more crimes felonies. If you ever wandered onto, or even parked, in a Post Office parking lot with a firearm on you or in your vehicle, you have committed a felony.

I read somewhere a couple of years ago, and wish that I could remember where, that the average American unknowingly commits 3-4 felonies a day.
 
Not hard today. They just keep making more and more crimes felonies. If you ever wandered onto, or even parked, in a Post Office parking lot with a firearm on you or in your vehicle, you have committed a felony.

I read somewhere a couple of years ago, and wish that I could remember where, that the average American unknowingly commits 3-4 felonies a day.

Clearly Shakespeare was correct about lawyers. There are too many of them, and they keep making stupid laws to try to make themselves useful.
 
The pot stuff is tricky. Oregon is having a hard lesson after decriminalizing most if not all drug use, and Washington is having a terrible time with poly-substance impaired driving and public drug use. In your house, like a lot of things, I don't know or care. Outside? FYVM.
 
And I got to represent these lovely guys whose wives were picking on them to get an edge in the divorce. Yeah, right. That happens in maybe 10% of the cases.

But the 5th Amendment is there to protect the gun owner from "seizure without due process of law."

You pooh pooh the guys that suffer confiscation, many times due to lies, and then turn around and say they have the 5th amendment to prevent it from happening even though it does.

Reenforcing the stereotype, counselor.
 
In my almost a decade in the Public Defender's Office, I saw far more Domestic Violence cases than I ever wanted to. And I got to represent these lovely guys whose wives were picking on them to get an edge in the divorce. Yeah, right. That happens in maybe 10% of the cases.

Spousal abuse is a big problem in this country. And folks are always looking for an easy fix. It was a driving force in the 19th Amendment. Men who beat their wives are not men, they are mentally unstable jerks. They are also great liars and very good at manipulating their wives. Every day that passes after the assault increases the likelihood that the woman will drop the complaint.
There are no easy fixes. One of the problems is manipulative spouses can usually beg forgiveness given a little time, and get the case dismissed, and go for the next round in the bout.
Police Officers have to intervene at all times of the day or night at high risk of serious personnel harm while judges and victim advocates sit around and dream up easy fixes so they can work from nine to five.
The gun confiscation issue can protect the Officers, maybe. But the 5th Amendment is there to protect the gun owner from "seizure without due process of law." Divorces can be ugly, nasty affairs with a lot of truth-bending going on from both sides. But, seldom do they involve the brutal beatings and murders that too often happen. We should have 24-hour domestic violence magistrates to hear the facts from witnesses and the victim and provide the due process of law.
Lots of folks out there should make better choices on who they marry. During a divorce, men should realize if they lash out by not giving the wife money to feed the kids and pay the bills, she is going retaliate with visitation

I responded to a domestic assault in the early '70s, before cops could make an arrest. The so called husband said; "You mean I can't discipline my wife in my own house." I encouraged the lady to get a warrant (the only legal option then), turned to him and promised to vigorously serve it. The real shame is I never got to follow up on that promise.
 
In my almost a decade in the Public Defender's Office, I saw far more Domestic Violence cases than I ever wanted to. And I got to represent these lovely guys whose wives were picking on them to get an edge in the divorce. Yeah, right. That happens in maybe 10% of the cases.

Spousal abuse is a big problem in this country. And folks are always looking for an easy fix. It was a driving force in the 19th Amendment. Men who beat their wives are not men, they are mentally unstable jerks. They are also great liars and very good at manipulating their wives. Every day that passes after the assault increases the likelihood that the woman will drop the complaint.
There are no easy fixes. One of the problems is manipulative spouses can usually beg forgiveness given a little time, and get the case dismissed, and go for the next round in the bout.
Police Officers have to intervene at all times of the day or night at high risk of serious personnel harm while judges and victim advocates sit around and dream up easy fixes so they can work from nine to five.
The gun confiscation issue can protect the Officers, maybe. But the 5th Amendment is there to protect the gun owner from "seizure without due process of law." Divorces can be ugly, nasty affairs with a lot of truth-bending going on from both sides. But, seldom do they involve the brutal beatings and murders that too often happen. We should have 24-hour domestic violence magistrates to hear the facts from witnesses and the victim and provide the due process of law.
Lots of folks out there should make better choices on who they marry. During a divorce, men should realize if they lash out by not giving the wife money to feed the kids and pay the bills, she is going retaliate with visitation
I think women are the perpetrators of DV more so than men, but men don't report it. L.E. like to be white knights, especially older past their prime retired L.E., who also do not take it seriously. It was maybe one way back in the 1930s, but nowadays, modern women do not act like ladies. I also am not buying that any significant percentage of men are beating the **** out of their women. From what I see is women instigated the physical altercation but also is seen as the victim of the man if he defends himself, it's 50/50 where both the woman and man put their hands on each other, or women out right lie and L.E. and society automatically beleives them and comes to their "rescue."

I just looked it up, and they say 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 or 9 men have been victims of severe physical violence. While I believe those numbers are inflated, I guarantee you the the numbers for men are much, much, much higher. I've witnessed in real life, news stories, TV talk and reality shows, and on YouTube where men are being attacked by women in public. Everyone standing around are watching, recording, and/or laughing as the man is being attacked. The second a man so much as pushes a the woman off of him, everyone wants to call the cops, get involved, or fight the man.
 
Last edited:
That's a red herring argument and you know it. In the situation you cite, the guy gets convicted of a crime. In most jurisdictions, a protection order doesn't have anything to do with actually committing or getting convicted of a crime. No way a person should lose their 2A rights without an outright conviction of a felony.

You are wrong. Spouses for 100s of years accept "beat downs" from their spouses because it is a generational curse. A young girl sees grandpa slap grandma, pa beats up ma. So she accepts it too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not hard today. They just keep making more and more crimes felonies. If you ever wandered onto, or even parked, in a Post Office parking lot with a firearm on you or in your vehicle, you have committed a felony.

I read somewhere a couple of years ago, and wish that I could remember where, that the average American unknowingly commits 3-4 felonies a day.

Well California listened to you. A lot of Felonies have been downgraded to Misdemeanors.

Actually years ago depending on what state you live in. Having sex with your spouse was a felony depending on what you were doing.
 
You are wrong. Spouses for 100s of years accept "beat downs" from their spouses because it is a generational curse. A young girl sees grandpa slap grandma, pa beats up ma. So she accepts it too.

Your position is completely untenable. You want guys to lose their 2A rights without due process, and a protection order is typically issued without due process. And having cops come to your door to confiscate your guns while you try to get the BS protection order litigated is NOT due process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top