TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
They can pass all the laws they want... if no one enforces them, it's meaningless.
http://www.3atatraining.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:50 am
- Location: South Texas
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
So since you don't like the fact that there are exemptions in place for some, no domestic violence victim should expect the abuser is limited from access to firearms?rbwhatever1 wrote:According to the article, both of these federal and state laws need to be null and void. Laws stripping Americans of Natural Rights should apply to all citizens regardless of their status in society. Looks to me like a tyrannical jack booted Law was put in place...
"Under federal and state law, it is illegal for convicted domestic abusers and subjects of protective orders to possess firearms, with certain exceptions for police and the military"
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
Texas DPS Certified Private Security Classroom and Firearms Instructor
TCLEOSE Instructor (now TCOLE)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 5776
- Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
- Location: Austin area
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdem ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;baldeagle wrote:I don't think you should lose any rights in the case of a misdemeanor conviction. I wasn't aware that that class of convictions resulted in a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Are you certain about that? Misdemeanors are minor offenses for which you should be punished by fines or brief imprisonment, not the permanent loss of your rights.
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
I think the better answer is that LE shouldn't be exempt. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm, it should not matter what their profession might be. You mess up big enough, you lose your job if it involves firearms. That's how I think it should be. No animals more equal than others.jbarn wrote:So since you don't like the fact that there are exemptions in place for some, no domestic violence victim should expect the abuser is limited from access to firearms?rbwhatever1 wrote:According to the article, both of these federal and state laws need to be null and void. Laws stripping Americans of Natural Rights should apply to all citizens regardless of their status in society. Looks to me like a tyrannical jack booted Law was put in place...
"Under federal and state law, it is illegal for convicted domestic abusers and subjects of protective orders to possess firearms, with certain exceptions for police and the military"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3269
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:48 am
- Location: Richmond, TX
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
It's true.baldeagle wrote:I don't think you should lose any rights in the case of a misdemeanor conviction. I wasn't aware that that class of convictions resulted in a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Are you certain about that? Misdemeanors are minor offenses for which you should be punished by fines or brief imprisonment, not the permanent loss of your rights.
Family violence misdemeanor convictions result in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms. This is courtesy of the Lautenberg Amendment.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic ... er_Gun_Ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Psalm 91:2
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 2315
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Where this hit the fan was when a sle of LEO's were stripped of their weapons and placed on desk duty or fired. The issue at hand was in a majority of cases, these were persons involved in a messy divorce, spouse claimed abuse, and to make it go away they plead o the misdemeanor charge. when Lautenberg was enacted it was retroactive. Dallas lost several officers to this several years ago.SQLGeek wrote:It's true.baldeagle wrote:I don't think you should lose any rights in the case of a misdemeanor conviction. I wasn't aware that that class of convictions resulted in a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Are you certain about that? Misdemeanors are minor offenses for which you should be punished by fines or brief imprisonment, not the permanent loss of your rights.
Family violence misdemeanor convictions result in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms. This is courtesy of the Lautenberg Amendment.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic ... er_Gun_Ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I Thess 5:21
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
Disclaimer: IANAL, IANYL, IDNPOOTV, IDNSIAHIE and IANROFL
"There is no situation so bad that you can't make it worse." - Chris Hadfield, NASA ISS Astronaut
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:29 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”
― Horace Mann
― Horace Mann
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 17350
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
I strongly disagree with this statement.Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
NRA Endowment Member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:29 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.WildBill wrote:I strongly disagree with this statement.Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”
― Horace Mann
― Horace Mann
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...Javier730 wrote:When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.WildBill wrote:I strongly disagree with this statement.Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:29 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Background checks are not needed for knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlight or frying pans. When a person buys a firearm, a background check is done and the seller knows not to sell the firearm to the person. They could always buy from a private individual but so can a felon. Doing that would be illegal and thats why I stated I didnt believe people who were abusive should have legal access to a firearm.jmra wrote:Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...Javier730 wrote:When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.WildBill wrote:I strongly disagree with this statement.Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”
― Horace Mann
― Horace Mann
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 5
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Utilizing that logic we should require background checks for any tool that can be used to commit murder. Very flawed logic.Javier730 wrote:Background checks are not needed for knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlight or frying pans. When a person buys a firearm, a background check is done and the seller knows not to sell the firearm to the person. They could always buy from a private individual but so can a felon. Doing that would be illegal and thats why I stated I didnt believe people who were abusive should have legal access to a firearm.jmra wrote:Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...Javier730 wrote:When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.WildBill wrote:I strongly disagree with this statement.Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 1265
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:29 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Anything can be used to commit violence thats why I said its a tough one to call.jmra wrote:Utilizing that logic we should require background checks for any tool that can be used to commit murder. Very flawed logic.Javier730 wrote:Background checks are not needed for knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlight or frying pans. When a person buys a firearm, a background check is done and the seller knows not to sell the firearm to the person. They could always buy from a private individual but so can a felon. Doing that would be illegal and thats why I stated I didnt believe people who were abusive should have legal access to a firearm.jmra wrote:Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...Javier730 wrote:When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.WildBill wrote:I strongly disagree with this statement.Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.
“Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.”
― Horace Mann
― Horace Mann
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:56 pm
- Location: Hill Country
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
Why are they're having so much difficulty disarming convicted felons in prison?
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 3
- Posts: 1434
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:16 pm
- Location: Paradise Texas
Re: TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.
baldeagle wrote: "Persons convicted of violations of the law deserve to have their rights stripped away. Even the founding fathers believed that. Rights are not absolute. They are conditional. You forfeit them when you harm other people. If you can't live in society without harming others, you don't deserve the rights that were naturally yours when you behaved yourself."
I agree with your statement completely. The only thing I have a problem with are Laws that contain exceptions for classes of people. Criminal Laws should apply to all citizens equally regardless of profession. It matters none what those exceptions are. The fact that they exist at all is ridiculous.
I agree with your statement completely. The only thing I have a problem with are Laws that contain exceptions for classes of people. Criminal Laws should apply to all citizens equally regardless of profession. It matters none what those exceptions are. The fact that they exist at all is ridiculous.
III