TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: I will argue that it's not right. Why is "domestic abuse" the only misdemeanor that will cost you your 2nd amendment rights? If it's that serious a crime, it should be a felony.

I don't care what category it's in. It's a violent crime and indicates a lack of good judgment. In my mind, a propensity toward violence and a lack of good judgment should probably cost you firearm ownership for a while. Sure, due process can fall on it's face, but if we stand on that alone, why not let out all the criminals? We've had death penalty cases without any physical evidence, but still a lot of people continue to support that as valid legal process and appropriate justice. Taking firearms for a while is certainly less permanent.

Those indicating how easy it is to pin the tail on the donkey, isn't that the same with assault or just about any "I'll sign the complaint" crime? A conviction should.. And I say should.. require more than just that.

Now the whole protective order thing, that's a bit more one sided and ridiculous.

No, it's not. Reread pawpaws original post: the police are essentially required to take the side of the woman on a claim of abuse and the man has to prove he didn't do it. If I assault you and it's you said I said (and you're not politically connected) there is no immediate presumption in favor of either one of us.

I can't claim to speak for any police officer, but I've been on calls where I've seen that your statement that police "are required to take the side of the woman" be proven false many times. Understanding that, statistically, men ARE the offenders more often than not, I've seen police officers observe injuries on men without corresponding injuries on the woman, and SHE gets taken to jail. If it's a "he said, she said", where the facts are clearly in dispute and there is no other proof, then the detectives get the opportunity to talk with both parties, and no one goes to jail.

I have no doubt pawpaw saw what he saw, but the times are changing and with changing times, police policies change. What he saw is not necessarily the way it is everywhere, today.

Regardless, this thread is not about the 'fairness' of domestic violence arrests, it's about the law that takes away a domestic violence offender's right to have a firearm, and how to implement that law in a non-confrontational way.

anygunanywhere wrote:

n5wd wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:So all they need to do is continue to redefine domestic abuse and then they can "legally" confiscate anyone's firearms.

Maybe they will soon use this against so-called domestic terrorists.

We are all just a redefinition away from total tyranny.

So, anygun (you don't mind me being that informal, do you), you're in favor of men who beat their wives (and historically, there are a far greater percentage of male domestic partner abusers, gay or straight, then there are female offenders), is that what you're telling us? You want these dispicable scum to have a ready gun at hand? How often have you beat your wife?

Never? Then, you're like most of us folk who've gone through life without laying a hand on our wife. And while there may be some one who file false reports, just to gain a advantage over someone else in a divorce, my personal experience with the victims has convinced me that society gives a lot of lip service to protecting legitimate victims while tending to screen out the ilegitimate reports. Ask a cop how well we can protect a wife that's being beaten by her ex. Ask one of the dispatchers who take a call from a victim, in progress, and ask her how long it takes for her to get officers to the call?

Everyone who's going to have their gun rights taken away goes before a judge before that happens. I believe in the system enough to think that, in this very limited and well-litigated instance, the law is a good one, and I'm glad Dallas County is doing something about this problem.

It's simple -if you want to have a CHL later in life, don't beat your wife. If you do have guns and you beat your wife, your guns get given to a third party (if you read the article, that is one of the options for a domestic violence offender) or let the county hold on to them while the protective order is in place (usually, a PO is good for two years), or if you're convicted, the term is forever.

The vast majority of good, honest folk have nothing to worry about, cause they'll never put themselves in that position.

Did you actually read my post? Where did I anywhere state that I supported abuser's keeping firearms?

As others have pointed out, the majority of these individuals are not convicted felons. In my opinion due process has not been followed.

My post was intended to point out that we all are just a signature on a piece of paper away from having our rights erased. Of course as your last sentence points out we good folks have nothing to worry about. We should act like we have nothing to worry about ever if we are good folks. Allowing searches during traffic stops comes to mind. If we have nothing to hide we have nothing to worry about, right?

Stating that we're "just a redefinition away from total tyranny" doesn't sound like you're in favor of what Dallas County is doing, does it? As the old saying goes, if you're not for something, then you're ag'n it.

As others have pointed out - Texas is one of the few places in the world that does not have a method in place to remove firearms from the possession of those who have been found guilty of domestic violence charges, and for the temporary removal of firearms from those who have protective orders in place against them. It's been the law for a long time, Dallas Co. is just finally coming up with a way to implement the law in what seems to be a fair, non-adversarial way.

If you don't think due process is being followed, then advocate for a change in the laws.

I believe in following the law, even if I don't believe the law is a perfect one. When I refuse a request to search my vehicle (which, by the way, I've never had - I've only been traffic stopped twice in my life and neither one of those officers asked to search my vehicle) I'm following the law that allows me to do that. No harm, no foul, and not against the law to do so.

As far as domestic abuse being only a misdemeanor, it is, If and only If it is assault by contact. The use of a weapon in the assault (any kind of weapon or item used as a weapon) raises the severity up the ladder, and IIRC a gun or firearm raises the agg assault to a felony.

I've mentioned before that I worked as a field medic and as a Supervisor for our local EMS agency, MedStar, for almost 16 years of the 25 I was a paramedic. Some of that other time, I was the only paramedic on a vollie fire department in a Fort Worth suburb.

While the kiddoh calls where I couldn't do anything for a small child hurt my soul the most, it was the domestic abuse calls that made me the maddest. It was a domestic violence/abuse call where I came within inches of having a knife stuck into my chest. It was a domestic violence repeat victim where I ran my first murder victim (a young woman who died with her two kids watching everything that was going on) and yes, she had a protective order in force, but just like bad guys don't care about a 30.06 sign, scum like this woman's ex don't care about protective orders.

Too many times we hear of a woman who is beaten again, shot, knifed, or simply hurt very badly by a former domestic partner. The law doesn't do a good job of protecting the people, whether they're male or female. Taking the gun away IS THE LAW and most jurisdictions in Texas din't follow the law. What Dallas Co. does is introduce a way to do it short of having gun squads, like the do in Mass, New York, California, etc. we can come up with better ways to do it, and Dallas Co's way is but one way to remove just one type of weapon away from abusers.

I can see the arguements about the protective orders. The ones where I have had to submit affadavits under subpeonae have all been legit, as far as I know. Have there been some innocent folks that have suffered because of a PO? Perhaps so. But, letting everyone keep their guns is not a real answer.

NICS is history and gun folks are mostly living with it. We (the law-abiding CHL people that we are) can live with this, too, until someone finds a better way to keep guns out of the hands of felons, and domestic abusers.

anygunanywhere wrote:So all they need to do is continue to redefine domestic abuse and then they can "legally" confiscate anyone's firearms.

Maybe they will soon use this against so-called domestic terrorists.

We are all just a redefinition away from total tyranny.

So, anygun (you don't mind me being that informal, do you), you're in favor of men who beat their wives (and historically, there are a far greater percentage of male domestic partner abusers, gay or straight, then there are female offenders), is that what you're telling us? You want these dispicable scum to have a ready gun at hand? How often have you beat your wife?

Never? Then, you're like most of us folk who've gone through life without laying a hand on our wife. And while there may be some one who file false reports, just to gain a advantage over someone else in a divorce, my personal experience with the victims has convinced me that society gives a lot of lip service to protecting legitimate victims while tending to screen out the ilegitimate reports. Ask a cop how well we can protect a wife that's being beaten by her ex. Ask one of the dispatchers who take a call from a victim, in progress, and ask her how long it takes for her to get officers to the call?

Everyone who's going to have their gun rights taken away goes before a judge before that happens. I believe in the system enough to think that, in this very limited and well-litigated instance, the law is a good one, and I'm glad Dallas County is doing something about this priblem.

It's simple -if you want to have a CHL later in life, don't beat your wife. If you do have guns and you beat your wife, your guns get given to a third party (if you read the article, that is one of the options for a domestic violence offender) or let the county hold on to them while the protective order is in place (usually, a PO is good for two years), or if you're convicted, the term is forever.

The vast majority of good, honest folk have nothing to worry about, cause they'll nnever put themselves in that position.

The Wall wrote:So where Dallas goes the rest of the state will go? Guess I won't be going to Dallas. Any time they use the word expert, you know it's liberal bull. I would be asking them to prove they are experts to start with. Who cares what the experts think anyway. It's the citizens that matter not some so called expert. IMHO

Ummm... you didn't bother reading the article, did you, The Wall?

There's a process in place now to remove guns from domestic abusers and others who have protective orders against them. Here's another story to give you the background:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/he ... county.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;