TexasCHLforum.com

n5wd wrote:

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.

Pawpaw said this in his first response: "The police will show up and tell you that they are required by law to take someone to jail and you're elected." I have read many times over the past few years that this is standard police policy. My understanding is that is it based on Federal Law but I can't cite the specifics. Maybe that is wrong but I don't think your experience "disproves" it. What it may demonstrate is that some police officers apply common sense in spite of bad policy. It may also not be universal and only apply in some jurisdictions. I've read that it is indeed policy in at least some locations: http://time.com/12682/when-not-to-arres ... ence-case/

Almost half the the states in America have mandatory arrest provisions in domestic violence cases, and it’s widely accepted as an important step in protecting the mostly female victims of spousal or partner violence. Just last month, the legislature in Madison County, Alabama, passed a bill that would strengthen police’s ability to make such arrests.

So, maybe it's not the law in Texas, I don't know, but it apparently is in lots of states.

I've also seen claims that women are the offenders as often as men are, or even more. For example: http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/ ... cfm?type=n

“In the 35 years since I began research on partner violence, I have seen my assumptions about prevalence and etiology contradicted by a mass of empirical evidence from my own research and from research by many others,” Straus said. “My view on partner violence now recognizes the overwhelming evidence that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men. However, when women are violent, the injury rate is lower.”

This study is of "dating partners" so the numbers may be different for married partners. However, it does dispel the notion that women are only victims of violence. Then there is this: http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/u ... olence.pdf

Among the debates in the field of domestic violence, none is more acrimonious than the debate around female initiated violence —a debate that has been troubling for feminists since the first U.S. National Family Violence Survey of 1975 found women to be as violent as men. Because this finding contradicts feminist theory, it has been suppressed, unreported, reinterpreted, or denied. Attempts to explain away or diminish female initiated violence in intimate relationships has resulted in violent women being portrayed as engaging in self-defensive violence, less serious violence, or being the victims of gender biased reporting differences (i.e., women are more credible in their reports of violence). In fact, rates of female initiated violence in intimate relationships are equivalent to or exceed male rates; they include female violence against non-violent males, even when analyzed for level of severity (Stets & Straus, 1992 ) and they have serious consequences for males (Archer, 2000; Laroche, 2005; Stets & Straus, 1992). Currently, women offenders constitute the fastest growing segment of the criminal justice system and the National Institute of Justice estimates that the increase in the incarceration rate for women is double that of men (Ferraro & Moe, 2003; Mullings,Hartley, & Marquart, 2004).

n5wd wrote: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 felont.

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 Denton 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.

Uh, if your experience is based on responding to calls where someone has been injured then there is actual evidence that something happened, not merely an accusation. I don't think anyone is talking about falsified evidence, but he said she said situations. All of the incidents herein related as unjust involved no injuries or evidence. In one of the incidents cited the wife wasn't even the one who made the complaint and denied any physical contact had taken place.

Given that you're posting on a CHL board I don't quite understand the tone of your posts like this one. A protective order isn't worth the paper it's written on. It may have some value in a lawsuit or some other court hearing but it has absolutely zero protective value (well, they may have some value supporting a self-defense claim if the person with the protective order ends up having to shoot their attacker). The police have no responsibility to protect anyone with a protective order...the courts have so ruled many times...and can't protect anyone except under some very narrow and limited circumstances. Isn't that why we have CHLs?

Furthermore, there is no way to keep a gun or any other weapon out of the hands of an abuser. Anyone, convicted felon or not, can go buy a percussion cap revolver with no background check. Six shots. They worked pretty well for the purpose of killing when they were invented. Even if that wasn't the case most people intent on killing someone can get their hands on a gun. That's been the pro-gun argument in any case, which I'd guess you support? But criminals don't need a gun to kill a wife or a child. Many abusers can beat a woman to death with their first. Clubs and knives are readily available.

I'm not making an argument to allow abusers to keep a gun. If someone has been adjudicated as committing a violent crime they shouldn't legally have a gun. But the reality is that there is only one real solution for a woman who fears an abuser: get a gun, know how to use it, and be prepared to do so to protect herself or her children. The police can't protect individuals. All of us are ultimately responsible for protecting ourselves. I think we all know full well that the supposed advocates for women are going to tell them the exact opposite and repeat the liberal nonsense that if they have a gun it will be used against them.

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.