Supreme Court takin our guns

BuffcoBuffco Senior MemberPosts: 10,271 Senior Member
«1

Replies

  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Just shoot her as your first move.

    Next problem!
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,799 Senior Member
    Thanks for posting the good news!
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Buffco wrote: »

    This was already the law. What's new?
  • mdelpmdelp Member Posts: 47 Member
    Nice to see a victory on occasion.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,714 Senior Member
    Any man that would hit a woman is not man enough to own a weapon.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,271 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    This was already the law. What's new?

    I wasn't aware of that.

    It seems pretty broad. ELI5: What constitutes DV?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,271 Senior Member
    Any man that would hit a woman is not man enough to own a weapon.

    And obviously, I agree. I'm not defending wife beaters.

    My question is how far does this go? Domestic violence is not just limited to physical violence.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,714 Senior Member
    Seriously a batterer is more likely to get away with battering his wife than some guy who stepped on her foot is going to jail.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,607 Senior Member
    My only issue with the law is that it removes the Constitutional rights of those who have been found guilty of a misdemeanor. I can't think of any other misdemeanors where that is done. My questions are, if you're abridging rights, why aren't these charges felonies, and if it's not "severe enough" to be a felony, then why aren't other violent acts carrying the same abridging of rights? Why does battering your wife carry a harsher penalty than abusing a woman who's not your spouse/family member/intimate partner?
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Which other misdemeanor is likely to "abridge the rights" of the same person over and over again? I think the control/bond aspect of DV sets it apart.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,607 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Which other misdemeanor is likely to "abridge the rights" of the same person over and over again? I think the control/bond aspect of DV sets it apart.
    Understood, but why not make it a felony? NO misdemeanors.

    BTW, I'm not trying to say DV's a minor thing, not in the least. I actually agree with comic that no person who beats a loved one should have the full extent of their rights. I just have a problem with it being a misdemeanor.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Sherb will be better for this, but I don't think DV is actually a crime. It is a label added to a crime which changes how the defendant is treated.

    As I understand it, if you beat your wife, you're not charged with domestic violence, you're charged with assault. But the fact that it is DV affects how you're treated.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,195 Senior Member
    Understood, but why not make it a felony? NO misdemeanors.

    BTW, I'm not trying to say DV's a minor thing, not in the least. I actually agree with comic that no person who beats a loved one should have the full extent of their rights. I just have a problem with it being a misdemeanor.

    Completely agree. Not trying to trivialize DV at all but if we want to make the punishment severe make it a felony. Why should the right to bear arms be given up for a misdemeanor? Does a DV misdemeanor conviction mean they get their voting rights taken away too like a felons?
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,607 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Sherb will be better for this, but I don't think DV is actually a crime. It is a label added to a crime which changes how the defendant is treated.

    As I understand it, if you beat your wife, you're not charged with domestic violence, you're charged with assault. But the fact that it is DV affects how you're treated.
    Then by my non-legally trained way of thinking, if it's a DV charge it should be an automatic felony.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Scenario 1: Ray Rice and his fiancee' get in a major arguement in a hotel elevator. Ray grabs his fiancee' on the arm as they get off the elevator and bruises her bicep.
    Scenario 2: Ray Rice and his fiancee' get in a major arguement in a hotel elevator. Ray knocks her unconscious and drags her to their room.

    Sceniario 2 gets Ray at least one year in prison (and maybe more) in New York State as felony assault. Should Scenario 1?
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 4,607 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Scenario 1: Ray Rice and his fiancee' get in a major arguement in a hotel elevator. Ray grabs his fiancee' on the arm as they get off the elevator and bruises her bicep.
    Scenario 2: Ray Rice and his fiancee' get in a major arguement in a hotel elevator. Ray knocks her unconscious and drags her to their room.

    Sceniario 2 gets Ray at least one year in prison (and maybe more) in New York State as felony assault. Should Scenario 1?
    If you're going to take away Ray's rights after the conviction, yes. If not, no. If you're going to punish someone long-term, does spending a year (or more in jail) really matter?

    My opinion.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,714 Senior Member
    If Ray Rice cannot get that plead down so that his rights are not taken away, then he is paying his lawyer too much money.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Buffco wrote: »
    I wasn't aware of that.

    It seems pretty broad. ELI5: What constitutes DV?

    yeah, the court's opinion is just an interpretation of the federal statute, which has been on the books a long time.

    Court definitely got this one right. In my opinion its not even close.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I have to say though, I disagree with this law. Certainly Congress's intentions were good.

    But you know what they say about good intentions. This law is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. The Lautenberg Amendment has the paradoxical effect of lowering the overall number of DV convictions. How does that work? Well, simply put, a lawyer, in order to provide competent advice, has to advise his client of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea to a charge like this. Once the client finds out he won't be allowed to possess a gun, he's not interested in a plea. And contrary to the posts upthread, grabbing an arm isn't likely to result in a conviction at trial. Throw in the fact that the victims are rarely cooperative with prosecution, and the cases are either dismissed, pled away, or lost at trial. Without the Lautenberg Amendment, we would get a lot more convictions than we do.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,271 Senior Member
    The arm grabbing was just me being facetious. I was really interested in the latitude given cops in making arrests and what constitutes DV.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Buffco wrote: »
    The arm grabbing was just me being facetious. I was really interested in the latitude given cops in making arrests and what constitutes DV.

    well, you're really gonna hate what I have to say next.

    A fair amount of states have mandatory arrest laws. If they have probable cause to believe a battery has occurred, they must arrest per the law. And in those states that don't have mandatory arrest, most departments have mandatory arrest policies which require arrests upon a finding of probable cause. The days when the cops separated the couple and told the guy to "go cool off" for a couple of hours are long gone.


    Seems draconian, right? And in some ways it is, but the problem is the risk of death to the victim is substantial. DV is the one crime that seems incredibly trivial (particularly at the misdemeanor level) but actually masks incredible danger. States that reduce their domestic homicide rates have by and large done so by making meaningful risk assessments in minor cases, which then don't later become major cases. Maryland is a good example.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I would add one thing. The law isn't able to distinguish between a guy who shoves his wife once and a controlling homicidal batterer filled with rage. So as you might expect, everyone gets treated like a batterer until the powers that be determine it to be otherwise. That's not necessarily fair to the guy who gets in a shoving match with the wife, but there's really no other way.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,714 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    I have to say though, I disagree with this law. Certainly Congress's intentions were good.

    But you know what they say about good intentions. This law is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. The Lautenberg Amendment has the paradoxical effect of lowering the overall number of DV convictions. How does that work? Well, simply put, a lawyer, in order to provide competent advice, has to advise his client of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea to a charge like this. Once the client finds out he won't be allowed to possess a gun, he's not interested in a plea. And contrary to the posts upthread, grabbing an arm isn't likely to result in a conviction at trial. Throw in the fact that the victims are rarely cooperative with prosecution, and the cases are either dismissed, pled away, or lost at trial. Without the Lautenberg Amendment, we would get a lot more convictions than we do.

    My support from this amendment comes from the feeling that women in these situations rarely get enough support from the judicial system to protect them. They maybe sensationalized and they may be rare, but when I read a story where an estranged batterer goes out buys a gun and shoots his wife after she has begged for help, I think this is a good law even if flawed.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Such cases are sensationalized and they are rare. But they also act as a substantial driver of public policy. The Lautenberg Amendment is but one example.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Getting a 9-0 ruling is itself sensational and indicative of the seriousness of this problem.

    A point of clarification needed here...does this ruling apply to convicted abusers only or does it include accused also?
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    It applies to convictions, but there's another section of the statute that prohibits possession when a suspect is under a DV restraining order, regardless of conviction. Once the order is lifted that section no longer applies.
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    ha
    (hold my beer and watch this)
    Take an abusive chick's gun away (or dude) and they will eventually just beat their spouse to death or stab em, or rolling pin, or etc. I'd rather be shot. Let em keep the dang guns, heck, give em a bigger gun. Helps expedite the inevitable. Between that and Darwin's Law we might have a chance at thinning the herds on this overpopulated marble. Let that sweaty Billy Bob in the KMart tanktop do his thing efficiently, it's the modern version of natural selection. If he kills himself afterward... BONUS!
    .... gun fearin pansies, some of you are. Can't you see the trees trough the forest? Shame on you and apologize to Billy Bob, NOW.
    Welcome to my world, the world of Red Bull.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,714 Senior Member
    Oh I get it, you are a parody.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    Oh I get it, you are a parody.
    ya.... except for the gun fearin pansies part, I actually feel that way
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Once the GUN issue is solved vis-à-vis the DV situations we will move on to the Rolling Pin/Knife/etc concerns. Don't jump the gun, as they say.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.