The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 26, 2012, 09:20 PM   #1
TXsnake
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2005
Posts: 6
Domestic Violence and Firearms ownership

People are finding out the hard way that if they plead no contest or guilty to and assault enhanced with a family violence finding can no longer possess a firearm or ammunition. Be sure what the law is in your state before you plead to even a fine only assault(in Texas that is an offensive contact).
TXsnake is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 10:23 PM   #2
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Considering that the Lautenberg Amendment has been around since 1994 this isn't something new. It is a violation of federal law for a person to possess a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

There doesn't even have to be any kind of special finding. The only requirements are that the offense have as an element the use of or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon and the victim is an "initmate partner."
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 26, 2012, 11:24 PM   #3
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
The Lautenberg Amendment and the Lautenberg-Barr provision pretty well gutted my local law enforcement, as well as many others. The biggest "domestic abusers" turned out to be cops. I had great fun teasing our counties chief deputy that was moonlighting at my favorite gunshop.

http://ptexans.com/app-bill.htm
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old August 27, 2012, 12:39 AM   #4
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
I had great fun teasing our counties chief deputy that was moonlighting at my favorite gunshop.
If I understand you correctly, that you enjoyed taunting a LEO who lost his job and 2nd Amendment rights because of a minor domestic conviction, that's something I wouldn't admit to, even in private, much less brag about over the Internet!

Of course, I wouldn't have to since I wouldn't find someone else's misfortune to be a subject of mirth.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old August 27, 2012, 01:02 AM   #5
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
If I understand you correctly, that you enjoyed taunting a LEO who lost his job and 2nd Amendment rights because of a minor domestic conviction, that's something I wouldn't admit to, even in private, much less brag about over the Internet!

Of course, I wouldn't have to since I wouldn't find someone else's misfortune to be a subject of mirth.
You didn't understand me correctly. He wasn't one of the abusers and he didn't lose his job. Few of them did, as a matter of fact. They just had an abundance of pencil pushers because a lot of them could no longer carry weapons. He was one of the few cops that was respected in my area because he was a decent person, not a badge heavy goon.

You must be young not to remember the "unintended consequences" of this misguided legislation. A serious backfire!
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old August 27, 2012, 01:20 AM   #6
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
The warning of the Lautenberg law is clear. Never plead guilty or no contest to ANY charge, not even a traffic infraction. Make the state prove your guilt despite a good defense.

What it really means is that today, if you're charged with some misdemeanor crime you cannot know if a conviction will wipe away one or more of your civil rights. What's more, no one can advise you that it might happen so you'll be totally screwed if such a law passes. I still believe Lautenberg, as applied, amounts to an ex post facto law.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old August 27, 2012, 01:48 AM   #7
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
The warning of the Lautenberg law is clear. Never plead guilty or no contest to ANY charge, not even a traffic infraction. Make the state prove your guilt despite a good defense.

What it really means is that today, if you're charged with some misdemeanor crime you cannot know if a conviction will wipe away one or more of your civil rights. What's more, no one can advise you that it might happen so you'll be totally screwed if such a law passes. I still believe Lautenberg, as applied, amounts to an ex post facto law
Exactly! Bite the bullet and lawyer up, even for something that appears minor. You don't know what's going to happen down the road.

I also think the reasoning behind the surplus of charges made against people is so they'll agree to cop a plea, rather than fight multiple charges.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old August 27, 2012, 04:04 PM   #8
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
The best thing to do is if you and the wife are getting angry at each other is to pick up the keys and leave the house till you both cool down. don't let it get to a physical stage.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old August 28, 2012, 09:19 PM   #9
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
Egahd. Good advice. Not just in domestic situations.
ltc444 is offline  
Old August 28, 2012, 11:31 PM   #10
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,068
Yeah, don't slap the wife or others around and you don't have to worry about domestic violence charges.

And don't plead guilty or 'no contest' if false charges are brought against you.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old August 28, 2012, 11:48 PM   #11
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
Yeah, don't slap the wife or others around and you don't have to worry about domestic violence charges.
And don't get a divorce. The first thing her lawyer is going to tell her is to claim "domestic violence" and it'll be up to you to prove your innocence. Meanwhile you are going to be treated like you're guilty and your gun rights will be stripped, among other things.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 12:11 PM   #12
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,582
Quote:
The warning of the Lautenberg law is clear. Never plead guilty or no contest to ANY charge, not even a traffic infraction. Make the state prove your guilt despite a good defense.
So even if a person is guilty and the state has strong proof, he or she should go to trial and take probable jail time rather than a fine?
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 12:43 PM   #13
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
So even if a person is guilty and the state has strong proof, he or she should go to trial and take probable jail time rather than a fine?
If the case is really airtight, would they offer you a plea bargain?
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 01:01 PM   #14
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnac
If the case is really airtight, would they offer you a plea bargain?
Actually, yes. It's less expensive for the taxpayers, conserves resources in the prosecutor's office and ensures a conviction and subsequent punishment, something that may be iffy if it goes to trial, especially if the defendent comes across as a wronged person and the "victim" as a jerk.

Locally this week, a woman accepted a plea bargain for chasing her husband down with her SUV, crashing through the lobby of a building to hit him and hitting him a second time when he got up and tried to run away...all of it caught on video. She pleaded guilty to second-degree aggravated assault and second-degree criminal mischief, originally charged with attempted murder and criminal mischief.
Don H is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 12:32 AM   #15
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyJim
So even if a person is guilty and the state has strong proof, he or she should go to trial and take probable jail time rather than a fine?
That's a judgement call for you and your attorney. You may be guilty of one crime as charged, but not others "piled on" by cops or prosecutors. For example, in arguing with a neighbor police are called and eventually it's decided to charge you with trespassing. When the cop grabs your arm and says "Come with me" you yank free to pick up your ball cap... and the cop decides to charge your with resisting arrest. (It happened to a former neighbor I once had). He fought both charges and managed to win dismissal of the resisting charge and paid a whopping $25 fine for trespass.

Had he not fought, it's very possible that anti-gun legislation could be enacted, like Lautenberg, adding a new "disability" to certain misdemeanor crimes including assault, battery, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer (i.e. touching), etc.

Your lawyer can also initiate a plea deal to some charge that's much more innocuous, and less likely to incur a disability, such as disturbing the peace.

It's happening in other areas of law too. A man, 68, was convicted of fraud in 1963 at age 19. But a new federal law meant to keep fraudsters and identity thieves out of banks meant he had to be fired, 49 years after the fact. A case of misdemeanor fraud turns out to be a big deal almost 50 years later when a senior citizen loses his job in this economy.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 11:17 AM   #16
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
It's happening in other areas of law too. A man, 68, was convicted of fraud in 1963 at age 19. But a new federal law meant to keep fraudsters and identity thieves out of banks meant he had to be fired, 49 years after the fact. A case of misdemeanor fraud turns out to be a big deal almost 50 years later when a senior citizen loses his job in this economy.
The really ironic thing about that (the linked article) is that his bosses have stolen or defrauded people out of billions, maybe trillions, and will never be punished.
One set of rules for the "little people", one set for the ones doing the big crimes.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 02:51 PM   #17
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,093
A friend is a retired Navy SEAL. He was undergoing a divorce when his wife decided he should die by cop.

The wife called the cops, claiming her husband had assaulted her and was planning to kill cops. The cops sent the SWAT team who soon released the guy. He went to a second home in another county. The wife called the cops in that county and another SWAT team soon showed up: He was soon released again. This stuff all happened in one day.

The ex-wife lost custody of her son in the divorce.
thallub is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 04:32 PM   #18
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,126
There should be something she could have been charged with. I'm glad no one went cowboy on your friend. Sad, but it does happen.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 04:33 PM   #19
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
A friend is a retired Navy SEAL. He was undergoing a divorce when his wife decided he should die by cop.

The wife called the cops, claiming her husband had assaulted her and was planning to kill cops. The cops sent the SWAT team who soon released the guy. He went to a second home in another county. The wife called the cops in that county and another SWAT team soon showed up: He was soon released again. This stuff all happened in one day.

The ex-wife lost custody of her son in the divorce
I could tell some stories, but I can't beat that! Let's just say that I got custody of my kids also and I got my firearms back.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11123 seconds with 9 queries