Should Domestic Violence Abusers Own Guns?

[ensho]

http://campusprogress.org/fieldreport/3483/should-domestic-violence-abusers-own-guns


Of course not. Hopefully, the Supreme Court agrees.


-snip-

In United States v. Hayes the Court will interpret the Lautenberg Amendment, a law passed following the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, a ban on convicted felons possessing firearms. The Court will either decide that the Lautenberg Amendment applies to batterers across the country, creating a total gun ban for domestic violence abusers, or it will decide that the amendment applies only in those states with specific domestic violence laws, allowing thousands of convicted batterers to own guns.

Depending on which way the ruling goes, it could result in thousands of convicted domestic violence abusers being given new access to guns. There are two main issues in this case: First, at the moment domestic violence isn’t considered a felony in all 50 states; second, gun ownership and sales are difficult to regulate, despite what the National Rifle Association might lead you to believe.

-snip-

“The real danger is that they’ll decide to relax the ban on guns,” said Michael Runner, Director of Legal Programs of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. “It’s going to be a disaster.” Legal Momentum, formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, estimates that between 1,000 and 1,600 women die every year at the hands of their male partners; and domestic violence abusers are 12 times more likely to kill their victims if they have a gun.

“It would be extremely dangerous for families and police officers,” said Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the group that filed a brief with the Supreme Court. On average, more than three people are killed by intimate partners every day in this country. Intimate partner homicides account for up to one-half of all homicides of females, and 14 percent of all police officer deaths occur during a response to domestic violence calls, according to the Brady Center.

-snip-

Currently, an estimated 34.5 percent of households have a gun, and 24 percent have a handgun. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home, according to the Brady Center. And, the proportion of male to female homicides is increasing, Runner said.

(increasing! good grief, its bad enough now)

-snip-
----------------------------------------


will the Supremes continue the war on women

[crim son]

1. What a question.

No person convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own a gun, period. Even the gun-lovers must see the wisdom of this.

[MountainLaurel]

10. You would think

Interestingly, when this law came out, two of the groups complaining loudest were the U.S. military and the police associations, because they had so many abusers among their ranks. Their argument was "if he can't have a gun, he can't do his job." :puke:

[crim son]

13. Then let them become gas station attendants.

They are not qualified for positions in law enforcement or our country's defense.

Unfuckingbelievable, isn't is?

[PeaceNikki]

2. No, they should not.

On edit, maybe the REAL problem is that domestic violence is a mere slap-on-the-hand misdemeanor in most cases. Convicting as a felony would take care of this.

[sam sarrha]

7. Domestic Abuse is TORTURE.. been there.. i was stabbed twice, bitten so bad i got gangrene almost my

arm. you are trapped and the threat of irrational violence is torture

[PeaceNikki]

8. Were charges pressed?

Your situations sound like they should have been charged as felonies.

[Luciferous]

31. Agreed

They should ban the gun ownership AND enact tougher laws against domestic violence.

[Joanne98]

3. NO!

[sam sarrha]

12. fucku, you know very well 90+% are not. had i reported the bite, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ARESTED, i would

have been put on a list of suspected sex offenders, and could have been extridited to everywhere a woman bit a man in an assault.. for a line up. that happened to a guy, he spent 2 tears of the next 4 years being extridited arround the country. lost everything. they made a movie about it. i am a biologist and acquired antibiotics from a vet supply i had association with

i have been a parole officer.. i know how this works. your showing your ignorance even asking that question. women get beaten worse or killed for doing that.. men are not eager to report it cause the woman will acuse him and say its defencive.. put him in jail and leave with the child you are trying to protect.

[EstimatedProphet]

4. Of course they should

Everyone should own as many guns as possible. Of any types available.

[sam sarrha]

5. SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE.. that would stop a lot of abuse and save lives

[happychatter]

34. wrong placement, sorry - NT

[msongs]

6. "yeah but they have a constitutional right to bear arms!!! must not deny their rights!!!" - NRA nt

[sohndrsmith]

9. and to think what the statistics would be like if they included every abuser...n/t

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. I would say it would be OK, but only if...

The abuser had to keep his or her entire collection of guns up his or her ass.

[rrneck]

15. LOL! I like it! But what do you think of this...

If someone has a felony conviction he/she cannot own a gun. That's the way it works anyway right? If he/she is already a gun owner and commits a personal assault of any kind (aside from shooting somebody, which is already a felony), then whatever they did gets upgraded to a felony and greater punishment. Greater power presumes greater responsibility for one's actions. Or does it already work that way?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[-..__...]

16. Someone convicted of misdemeanor abuse...

Should be allowed to retain all their Constitutional rights... including the right to keep and bear arms.

Felony abuse and/or assault? that's another story.

[rrneck]

17. Yeah, but if someone commits a

misdemeanor offense before he/she acquires a firearm, that individual has by definition a much greater ability and propensity to cause serious injury or death to another and therefore should be required to shoulder that greater responsibility for further aggressive behavior. Anyone who has a history of violence should be a big red flag to the system and to themselves if they have a firearm. Joe/Jane anybody may just hurt you in a fist fight, but Mike Tyson could kill you if he hit you.

I'm thinking that domestic abuse etc. usually escalates from stalking, beatings etc. before the real murder happens. If the perp knew that the penalties were much greater if he/she were on record as owning a firearm he/she might think twice about pulling that shit again.

[DonEBrook]

19. Running a red light is a misdemeanor.

So is jaywalking and in many places, allowing your doggie to poop on the sidewalk.

[rrneck]

20. True, but we're talking about domestic violence etc. here,

jaywalking and dog pooping are not assaults another's person.

at the moment domestic violence isn’t considered a felony in all 50 states

I'm suggesting that misdemeanor violence against another become a much more serious offense if the individual has a history of such violence and owns a firearm.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. The question in this case really is whether domestic abuse should be a felony

I think it should be.

[rrneck]

24. On its face, it seems that way, but

in the cauldron of a failed relationship when even good people can exibit irratioanl behaivor and make mistakes and then the issue becomes much more complicated than it might first appear.

I have some experience in that area. I made the mistake of getting caught between two married friends whose marraige was imploding and I witnessed first hand how hard it is to tell who was being goaded into irrational violent behaivor. Now, so far, one might think I am describing how the wife goaded her husband into beating her up, and I suppose that could happen, but in this case it was the husband who was at fault. He was, (and probably still is) one of the most dishonest and manipulative people I have ever met, and was fully capable of goading his wife into irrational behaivor that might have caused him personal injury (with a vehicle). He would have liked nothing better than to land her in court behind a felony rap so he could have his new life with the kids and the mistress half his age. He had all the money (millions) and all the power and she wouldn't have had a chance.

There is value in a progressive system of adjudication so that the court (and society) can slow down and have a close look at what is actually going on before lowering the boom on people.

[derby378]

26. That sounds reasonable

By all means, let's up many DV offenses to felonies, but let's not throw common sense out the window and abandon any attempt to examine what's really going on in a domestic situation.

[EstimatedProphet]

29. It is a difficult situation

I agree that we should have a judicial system that doesn't behave in a knee-jerk way when issues are brought up. However, I will say this: my first marriage was one of those disfunctional, twisted, unhealthy relationships we're describing. I lost my temper a lot, because I was goaded into it. Never did I hit my ex. Not once. I believe that line can be avoided in almost every case, with the possible exception of self-defense. Also, when it is clear that there is a party at fault, and there's been physical abuse, I think it crosses over into felony territory.

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. Only convicted felons should have any of their rights restricted...

as Americans we should do more to protect the women here in this country such as teaching them at an earlier age that violence should be met with violence.

Women should own handguns and not be afraid to use them against any aggressors. Anything other than this wont solve the problem. Restraining orders and the like arent worth the paper they are printed on.

[EstimatedProphet]

22. "Violence should be met with violence"?

Are you sure you want to say that?

[raccoon]

23. How 'bout teaching kids it's not ok to beat up on other people, just

because you can?

[jmg257]

25. They need to forget this "convicted felon" stuff, and make it "violent offender".

Martha Stewart can't own a gun but some scumbag who beats his wife can?

STUPID!!

[Hepburn]

27. Here is my take on this issue:

As to denial of gun ownership:

If there is any violence involved on the issue ~~ generally YES as to a prohibition on guns for that person.

What I do not agree with is that any felon cannot own a gun. IMO, if the felony is non-violent, then gun ownership should not be denied. For example, such things are "paper" crimes like embezzlement, mail fraud ~~ there is no violence and therefore I cannot see a legit reason for the denial.

With a situation such as a conviction or a pending charge based on domestic violence or a restraining order in regard to the same, this is not just an issue of violence, but usually out of control emotions to the maximum. Unlike a armed robbery which usually involves some thought and planning, an act of domestic violence usually ~~ but not always ~~ takes place based on emotions which are out of control, i.e., a rage killing.

[old mark]

28. More brady bunch bullshit. nt

[riqster]

30. Better to cut off their, *ahem* , 'weapons', IYKWIMAITYD

They are the 'root cause' of the problem.

[pipoman]

32. The entire article is tainted

by the use as the Brady groups as a serious source for honest information and statistics. They are demonstrably liars and the credibility of this article is in the toilet by their inclusion.

[SteppingRazor]

33. I think we need only answer the larger question:

Should people convicted of ANY violent crime own guns?

The answer is clearly "no."

[happychatter]

35. ya'all probably supported "3 strikes you're out" for violent offenders

Sitting here MUTE regarding all the non-violent offenders serving out LIFE SENTENCES...

but screaming for still MORE draconian excess

When are you going to learn?

[PeaceNikki]

36. HUGE difference between 3 strikes and putting guns in the hands of abusers, dude.

I am vehemently against the 3 strikes laws but I believe abusers should not have guns. I believe that this can be accomplished by charging domestic violence laws more harshly.

[happychatter]

37. How many are convicted when falsely accused?

You have no idea

and if you like three strikes you're out... you'll love THIS proposal

trust legislators not to slip in some unconstitutional crap?

trust law enforcement not to set people up, manufacture evidence, withhold evidence... mismanage licensure... engage in corrupt cronyism so the rich and elite... the connected get no restrictions...?

I don't think so

you're wrong... you want to deal with domestic violence? fine

decriminalize drugs and make alcohol and drug treatment available enmasse' for the poor

then get back with me about this particular piece of hyper-legislation

[PeaceNikki]

38. Read my reply again.

[happychatter]

42. I did read it... I was being facetious... it's the SAME type of thing... that's my point

it will be one more bit of craftily written, executed for purposes beyond the intent of the law, law

one more reason to lock a poor person up

if you think the lah tee dah, or even the middle class are going to jail on this one, you're wrong

it will be just another brick in the wall, permanently disenfranchising low income people

people that drink and scrap

maybe they shouldn't drink and scrap, but now, if they even OWN a gun... they go to the penitentiary

good thinkin'

[FreeState]

40. I suggest you volunteer for a Domestic Violence shelter - I did for over 6 months

as a male advocate that spoke to male victims and abusers. In my opinion its better a falsely convicted woman or man have to fight for their right to own a gun than one convicted abuser be allowed to own a weapon. Domestic Violence is one of the most vile disgusting things I have ever seen in my life - its better to err on the side of safety in my opinion.

[happychatter]

44. you probably think CPS protects children too

the "error" will only target low income people

nobody in the middle class will EVER see the inside of a jail

the rest will go to prison... sometimes for life

edited to add: We're not really talking about an occasional error in justice... we're talking about a consistent policy of selective enforcement... hyper enforcement... targeting the poor

added again: This will end up being yet another Racist Pogrom

[FreeState]

45. LOL - what ever n/t

[happychatter]

49. I've been working with street populations for twenty years voluntarily AND on the clock

you can "whatever" all you like

if you've never been beaten and left for dead by the police, or done any time for the crime of being poor, or Black...

if you won't admit that the preponderance of these cases are AGAINST low income people...

well then YOU are the one in willful ignorance

[pipoman]

48. Until you or someone you care about is on the

nightmare side of the error. We can error on the side of safety by arresting each and every person leaving a bar, better safe than sorry. A better solution than the exclusion of gun rights would be the exclusion of alcohol rights. If you are arrested one time for domestic abuse you may never drink alcohol again. If you are caught with alcohol or with alcohol in your blood it is life without the possibility of parole. Before long we could have a pristine colony of perfect people...the master race if you will...

[slackmaster]

39. I oppose taking civil rights away permanently for misdemeanor convictions

If a crime is bad enough to warrant preventing someone from owning a gun, voting, etc. it should be punishable as a felony.

[meow2u3]

41. HELL, no!

There ought to be open season on domestic abusers, IMO.

[Iggo]

43. I was arrested and convicted for possession...

...of a few grains of meth in a plastic baggie. That's a felony, kids. Now I can't have a gun.

Maybe I should've just beat up a girl or something.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. What's the legal difference between misdeamenor abuse and felony abuse?

[virginia mountainman]

47. You better be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

If I tell my mother in law, to "Die and go to hell"

That can be considered "domestic abuse", and I CAN, loose my RIGHT, to own a firearm for life.

Those of you that are "knee jerk" all in support of those kind of strict laws, better think of the consequences when some one wants to apply the same standards and logic, to the REST of the bill of rights.

After all, if a misdemeanor is enough to loose a constitutional right, who is to say the same logic does not apply to the rest of them.

This law like many other gun control laws, are wrote with very little actual understanding of the problem at hand.

[CitizenPatriot]

50. I'm sure this varies state to state

but here's a true story that happened to a friend of mine.

Man already with restraining order filed by a judge (criminal restraining order, not personal protection order) is allowed to keep hunting guns. Tracks ex wife down and tried to murder her in a gruesome manner which left much physical evidence for police.

He is prosecuted by the police (again, a difference in who pressed charges) for attempted murder. He pleads guilty.

He gets parole (just parole, even though he did this while he had a criminal restraining order against him).

He gets to keep his 3 hunting guns and various bows, knives, etc.

he threatens to kill woman and her family if she doesn't give him another chance.

police do nothing, parole officer says he has a right to recreational guns since they weren't used in the commission of the crime.

Woman has to move and change name to protect herself.

Man is later brought up on charges for physically assaulting a female client of his. This is one in a long string of offenses he has been charged with since. He still has his guns. His right to own them supersedes the safety of the general public, apparently.

This is an example of how the criminal justice system treats women in this country. And what they leave undone, the public finishes off with their willful denial of the violent reality many women live with every day.

We need Biden in office.