TexasCHLforum.com

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 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.

Pawpaw wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Is anyone arguing that people convicted of domestic abuse (ie, commonly called "criminals" on this forum) should retain their 2nd amendment rights?

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.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to be convicted of domestic abuse? All that is necessary is for the female to call it into 911. The police will show up and tell you that they are required by law to take someone to jail and you're elected. Then you will have the opportunity to post bail. Remember, the person who put you there now has control of all of your money so good luck. After several months drag by, you will finally get your day in court. She says you did & you say you didn't. There are no bruises or other evidence, but that doesn't matter. The judge will still pronounce you guilty. Congratulations. You have now lost the right to own a gun and you didn't do anything.

I have seen it, personally, with a close family member. I was sitting in the courtroom when "judgement" was passed on a purely "he said - she said". The guy loses.