Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm-Related News' started by Joe Link, Jan 29, 2019.
A bill at the Legislature would take guns away from domestic abusers. Anyone disagree?
As stated in the article, federal mandates prohibit those citizens who have been ‘convicted’ of DV from purchasing firearms, but only IF the State’s report such info to NICS for inclusion into their database!
The AZ’s proposed ‘loophole’ fix mixes term of convicted DV to ‘abusers’ and also wishes to confiscate their guns in an effort to stop intimate partner violence activities.
I am not sure why AZ legislators & Governor truly believe the mantra of keeping guns out of violent peoples hands works as all they have to do is look specifically at Chicago’s and NY’s and othe locales across this great nation’s successful results!
While people that exhibit uncontrolled violence should be carefully monitored, my concern is who's definition of domestic abuse is to be the criteria? I have seen people arrested for domestic abuse for breaking their dinner plates in a fit of rage over an argument. That would not be my definition of abuse. Also in my experience I have seen many cases in which I believed that it took two to tango. Both parties responsible. Should a person be denied the right to self defense under such circumstance? There are many mitigating circumstances to be considered. One size does not fit all.
borderWarrior, unfortunately the dynamics of intimate violance, aka Domestic Violence are quite complex and statutory definitions vary on the federal and state level. From a psychological perspective, there are clear delinations of power and control behaviour coupled with successfull treatment modalities.
Smashing plates as you mentioned, falls under the emotional & intimidation tracks under the power & control wheel and qualifies as an arrestable DV offense, if convicted, loss of firearm purchase privileges.
It's already illegal at the federal level. Read your BATFE 4473. DV includes anyone you're actively intimately involved with or cohabitate with. Passing more laws is never the answer. It's just a government warm fuzzy to those who are ignorant of the law to cover up their lack of enforcement of existing laws. This is the same smoke and mirrors for the wave of red flag laws being passed.
That power and control you speak of is a two way street. I call breaking something a demonstration of anger. But I am no longer a judge. The courts have removed the male toxicity in response. Females on the other hand, are free to practice their weapon of choice, verbal abuse and psychological torment. Females enjoy such advantage in Marriage, judiciary favor, and Public favor when confronted by a male. And never suspect for one minute that they are unwilling to use such advantage for personal control. You lost the Power and Control circle. There are many studies to eliminate the male response to female activities. They enjoy great favor in the great liberal and female oriented bastions of higher learning. I wood not defend actions of Males who physically abuse family members, but in my estimation, use of the power and control wheel is a two handed sword that is easily used by either party. When it is used to delete a mans, or womens ability to defend there selves in a very hostile world then the intent is suspect to other agenda's. As you point out it becomes just one more tool to disarm the citizens any way possible.
Sorry borderwarrior, if not for intimidation of who has the power/control, would someone need to demonstrate their anger?
Further, did you see where i delinated a gender on whom is abusing the facets of the P/C elements towards their intimates? Tis your personal biases showinging.
So, in a SD incident, one hopes all investigators accomplish due diligence and if previous/current DV is in the mix then so be it and those are duly and appropriately judically tried.
Anger is as normal as any other human emotion. And demonstrating it is also a normal human reaction to adverse stimulus. As to my personal bias, could be a touch of that based solely on years of officiating domestic disputes, both in the field and from the bench. Never does one size fit all, as higher education fanatics would have you believe.
So borderwarrior, YOU raise my ire to the point i demonstrate and express my anger towards you through intimidation, slamming my fist, breaking things, etc., where you personally feel threaten, to the point, you believe feel your life is in danger. Ah, now there might be assault or initiate SD protocols...open and shut two strangers in a brawl.
Same scenario, except you depend on me to provide your housing, $$$ to care for our offspring, etc. You are emotionally connected and worried about the welfare of the offspring so YOU silently endure you continued demonstrations of your anger and displeasure and you go to LE you still lose your financial support don’t you?
Normal expression of violance generated anger towards another, especially an intimate, is not normal.
Sure it is normal. There are definitely two sides to the issue. Which one takes precedence? As always, the female version.
Abuses abound on both sides. My point, the extreme of battery can not be tolerated. No doubt. But if there is anyone in the world that knows what buttons to push to drive you over the edge. It's your spouse. And as yet the judiciary has not addressed that form of abuse as any form of justification for anger.
Surely you mean someone’s partner, right Judge?
Fortunately they have not figured a way to have a family without a partner yet. But their trying.
Lesbian IVF couple who shared eggs and sperm BOTH give birth to twins | Daily Mail Online
its just ashame there even allowed to reproduce.
I disagree. Right now, it's "domestic abuse." A year from now, it will be your guns are confiscated because you didn't get your wife roses for Valentine's Day. The Evil Left will create more and more ways to unhand a man of his firearms. "Mission Creep" is what they do when they seek to deny or destroy Individual Freedom. Give a gun-grabber an inch, he'll pish and moan and whine and bawl until he gets a mile. Then he'll want more after that. We need a good Second Amendment case that takes us back to the firearms Freedoms we had on December 15, 1791...
Hummm, violence against women federal act was instigated in 1994 & passed by congress in 1996. So not sure of creep since it has been 22+/- years
Let’s see, you are referring to 18th century where white aristocrat firearm freedom benefited from privilege and where Natives, Negros, and women were not so privileged?
From ACLU, quote:
The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.
Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy. The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship.
And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Unquote.
The Bill of Rights: A Brief History
So nvshooter you were waving the 15 Dec 1791 flag as enclusive firearm freedoms?
Please take a moment and join our community (it's free)