Dallas County to begin gun-confiscation

[The Wall]

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

[n5wd]

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;

[anygunanywhere]

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.

[GlockDude26]

and any liberal can make false reports of domestic violence on their neighbors, ex's, etc and then they'll be disarmed? sounds good to me

[VoiceofReason]

Guns pose the most dangerous threat to domestic violence victims.

And soon stabbing and strangulation will pose the most dangerous threat to domestic violence victims.

The gun confiscation policy isn’t perfect.

While experts praised Dallas County for stepping up to enforce the law, they warned that threatening to take guns away from abusers could cause them to retaliate against victims. They recommended that judges set the shortest possible deadline for abusers to turn in their guns to minimize risk.

I will bet this triggers a rash of domestic violence whether the media reports it or not.

The answer is not to try to take away every instrument of violence but to lock up the perp or for the one being abused to leave the abuser. But again the liberals don’t know how to really fix the problem or it’s too much work.

[K.Mooneyham]

So, all it takes is one restraining order and bam, no firearms? Where is the actual due process in this? I've read that one of the first things a divorce lawyer will tell a woman to do is get a restraining order against her husband. Puts the court in a sympathetic attitude toward the "abused" woman. Which, of course, is terrible because it takes away from the fact that some women are actually abused.

[Beiruty]

If there is no search warrant and order from a Judge to surrender "an item". They can get lost.
Texas State Attorney would sue the Dallas City/County.

[baldeagle]

I have an idea. Instead of putting an inanimate object in jail, how about putting criminals in jail???

[n5wd]

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.

[cb1000rider]

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.

[baldeagle]

Nor do I. In fact I would enthusiastically assist in disarming abusers. To me there are few lower life forms than men who hit women. I have two daughters. If one of them were abused, you can rest assured that he would be standing nose to nose with me, and when we were done he would never abuse again, because he would know he would not survive it. I dealt with an abusive husband at one point in my life. He stopped abusing his wife after I visited him. I'm not boasting. I'm just saying that strong men can make a difference. Those who abuse belong in jail, not holding restraining orders that do nothing.

[PUCKER]

Just commenting on the protective orders part - from seeing friends get divorced it seems that an agressive lawyer makes filing a protective order as standard operating procedure when filing divorce papers. Happened to my best friend, however she did attack him with a knife (yet her lawyer filed a protective order against him).

Regarding who the actual abuser is, just quoting my cousin, LRPD Detective: usually we assume it's the man, but after investigation we reverse course because we find out it's the woman many times (he did not provide statistics).

[Pawpaw]

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.