Domestic violence has been a hot button issue. Even in the military if you have been convicted of domestic violence (I am not 100% sure of the severity levels and such) you are not allowed to be issued a personal weapon (M-16, M9, M249) only crew served weapons.
A misdemeanor conviction would spell the end of his gun days.
It's a good question (whether the actual prohibition is 100% co-extensive as to limitations as the question(s) on the 4473), and might be bad for him.... I don't know the answer.
But this is precisely why Lautenberg is so blatently unconstitutional and infuriating. It bars simple misdemeanants (for lack of a better phrase) for life, from their RKBA, evidently (unless expunged perhaps).
Two things for him (other than the advice of 'don't hit chicks', which is good but of very limited usefulness now): (a) Check with a GOOD lawyer about expungement, (b) failing that, if he wants to hunt, look into muzzleloaders and quackenbush-type big bore airguns. These can also be used for home defense. I certainly wouldn't want to be hit with one if I was a robber. I'm not totally sure, but I *think* that in OK, in that situation, regular MLs are ok, but not Savage 10, T/C, Optima Pro, etc. (ones that require FFL, obviously). Wait, the Savage 10 doesn't require an FFL, does it?
Lessons for OTHER people: Do NOT under any circumstances, plead guilty to even a misdemeanor of domestic violence - if the evidence is strong against you, find a way to make a plea bargain with the DA to plead guilty to a DIFFERENT misdemeanor, even if that plea involves more jail time and punishment than the one to which the DA wants you to plead!. If the evidence is weak, and you feel you are innocent, take them to trial.
Next, do not, under any circumstances, hit a woman, or any other household member for that matter.
Next, do not, under any circumstances, marry or even shack up with a woman for whom you are not 1,000,000,000% sure that she would never lie and accuse you of a DV act if not true. Have this conversation about 10 times before shacking up.
Got some real weisenheimer responses, dintcha DU?
Yes by all means if they're guilty of domestic abuse (which is one of the few physical contact laws that isn't seen as a felony) let's make sure they can keep their firearm so they can just shoot their family member next time.
Looks to be a contradictory of terms given your previous statement of "If you're guilty of abuse, keep your guns man!" If your guilty just say she's lying, even with that mountain of evidence corroborating her lies. And it was right on point since the original poster said he admitted to hitting her, not irrelevant at all.
I gotta ask, do you read what you type?
dustingaunder - Do you really think he should be able to keep his guns after he admittedly hit someone and it wasn't self defense? If this woman was your daughter there would be no question, you'd want his guns taken away. But since it's a woman you don't know, I'm guessing the answer is different.
So what about other tools?
I'm not dustin, but I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
Ah, you can't limit the weapon that the abuser would use in their assault against their family so why take his gun? Okay, you can't limit what a felon will use to commit an armed robbery so why limit him from a firearm? For me, it doesn't hold water.
You wouldn't have a problem with what? Him keeping his weapons or taking them?
Thank you for inquiring and allowing me to clarify...
Well, I'll assume that you're being facetious with that last statement - unnecessary but I can deal. So -let me ask you: What on earth would make you think that just because someone hits someone, they will shoot them next time? Did you EVER hit your brother or sister growing up? In fact, have you ever hit anyone, ever, in anger? If yes, then answer this: If there had been a gun available at that moment, would you have shot them instead? Your answers to those questions, if you answer them, will either tell you all you need to know about the correct result here, or tell us all we need to know about your projection issues.
Another question for you: Look at Veggie Meat's picture thingy: Would you be OK with a lifelong BAN on you being able to protect yourself as depicted from a drunk violent abusive man, just because you hit him previously in self-defense when he was slapping you around, and he lied to the police and said you hit him unprovoked, but you were found guilty of a misdemeanor because he ended up with a bruise (evidence), and you did not (no evidence)? You're ok with that?
Not at all. Please re-analyze. There are multiple, distinct lessons to be learned from the fallout of the practical application of the unconstitutional Lautenberg law. ONE of them is "make sure she ain't crazy and would lie even if you know you'd never in a million years lay a hand on someone" - this applies to women as much as men, mind you! Another lesson is "by all means beat the system if you are charged and very very guilty (of a misdemeanor only), because the law is unconstitutional and deserves to be beaten, and you'll lose a FUNDAMENTAL right just for a slap or hit if you don't".
Doesn't matter if he's 1 million percent guilty or not of beating up a household member - he should be found guilty and pay the price - serve a sentence for BATTERY. Under no circumstance should someone lose a fundamental RIGHT (speech, vote, RKBA, etc.), for a MISDEMEANOR, because the right is protected historically as to all non-felons. Now if the crime is a felony, not a misdemeanor, then by all means the RKBA and other fundamental rights should be impaired, because that's the historical rule. Not complicated here: Misdemeanor, NO. Felony, YES. Most DV crimes (but not all) are misdemeanors, for very good reason, and should be treated as such, with respect to ALL tangential issues - both punishment and right abrogation (or lack thereof).
Yes. Now do have any other questions?
I cannot answer for him, but if asking me, absolutely, yes! If the crime was bad enough to warrant him being charged with a FELONY, then the answer is different. He was NOT charged with a felony, because it was NOT that bad, what he did. Believe me, I guarantee you that if it had been really bad, the DA could have and would have found an applicable FELONY and charged it! There are plenty available that are felonies when aggravating circumstances are applied to simple battery DV crimes. Aggravating circumstances which are vague enough that the DA can always 'find them' when they want to - and DAs always charge what they think they can convict on and is roughly commensurate with the overall 'bad level' of the behavior, for lack of a better description.
Not true at all. I'm sure there are many many a son-in-law out there wouldn't in a million years dream of causing permanent-harm type violence as would accrue from a gun, but might lose a temper and slap or hit - and where the father-in-law would halfway agree with the son-in-law that the slappin was understandable - not "justified" or unpunish-worthy - just understandable. This is what separates us (most of us) from the other animals - the ability to have a conscience and learn where to draw the line. If we cannot draw the line, then NO ONE at all ought to be allowed to have anything which could conceivably be used as a weapon.
The punishment should fit the crime. The loss of the RKBA, in addition to jail time, community service, probation, and other punishment, like the loss of speech or the right to vote, is a SEVERE, SEVERE punishment, and should be reserved and relegated to serious crimes only - they are known as FELONIES! Not misdemeanors.
There are shades of gray here which we have to look at - it's not all just black and white.
If logic is applied, there's only one way to conclude that misdemeanants should lose their RKBA - and that's if you think that this loss is NOT an extremely severe loss or punishment - and they only way to believe that is to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the reasons for the existence of, and the historical data supporting the importance of, the RKBA. I suppose the only other way is to believe that certain misdemeanors should be re-classified as felonies - but this is a decision we have made on the whole as a society, through our elected legislatures - if you disagree, then by all means, get to work contacting your state and federal legiscritters to reclassify any and all domestic violence incidents as felonies, all punishable by more than one year in jail - that's how our system is set up to work. In other words, if you think that a brother hitting a sister, or only the slightest similar domestic crime should result in up to one year in jail, then by all means, go about convincing the general public and the legislators that it should be that way, and there should be *no such thing* as a domestic violence misdemeanor. But, please, don't go around supporting unconstitutional laws from the fedgov that do an end run around states' rights, butting into our state business, which is to determine what is and what isn't a felony, in effect, by turning upside down hundreds of years of the felony-misdemeanor distinction which worked quite well, thank you.
I'd have ZERO problem with him (or even a felon) keeping their weapons.
This is the type of comment that usually gets people riled up here. I predict a bunch of comments like
"what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand". Prepare to be flamed.
I don't know the specifics about the given situation so I will not comment personally about that because there are always two sides to a story. But you do know that pretty much every domestic murder starts off as a man who just used to hit his wife occasionally and then eventually escalates from there. Just because a man only slapped around his wife this time doesn't mean that he won't use a gun next time.
And if a guy ever slaps my daughter I could care less if they take away his guns. Although he may need them for personal protection from me.
Similar threads
