TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Respectfully, aren't these cases where their rights are already taken away by laws on the books? I know the issue here is actually confiscation, but that confiscation is empowered by laws that say subjects of protective orders and those convicted of domestic violence no longer have the right to keep firearms.

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

I do have an issue with taking firearms from people that the the subject of a protective order, as I'm not sure that the burden of proof for that order is as much as a criminal conviction... That's not due process to me.