Dallas County to begin gun-confiscation

[n5wd]

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]

I believe in following the law, even if I don't believe the law is a perfect one.

You must trust government. I don't.

[VMI77]

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).

[Deltaboy]

With out better protection of gun owners and fact finding I can see a whole can of issues ripe with abuse toward gun owners. Plus there needs to be a straight forward fast process to get them back once the man is cleaned.

[VoiceofReason]

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.

So here we are again with the liberal “blame the gun” simple minded solution.

Are you going to confiscate all knives, scissors and sharp things? Baseball bats, golf clubs and other blunt instruments? How is confiscating someone’s firearms going to stop them from beating their spouse? Are you going to make them wear cuffs and shackles twenty four hours a day?

I am so sick of “blame the man”, “blame the gun” that I could upchuck. I know this may sound crazy but leave the jerk. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen women go back to the man that knocks her around every weekend.

I am not a marriage councilor but I have been an LEO and we are married 46 years. Here is something I have noticed. When he knocks two of your teeth out, the magic’s gone. He doesn’t love you any more, if he ever did. The first time he hurts you get out. Find a shelter and start your life again. If you stay it will only get worse. If you stay you need to find out what’s wrong between your ears.

Confiscate the guns if it makes you feel better but don’t expect it to make any difference. You don’t need a CHL to get a gun. All you need is the money and desire.

[VoiceofReason]

By the way, I notice the date of 2011 on the post.

Most recent incident
Date: Dec 18, 2014
Police say Celina Orellana, 24, died after her ex-boyfriend stabbed her multiple times.
Obviously men and children don’t count as this article is skewed toward women killed by men with guns.
Updated: 12/16/14. Figures include Dallas, Denton, Collin and Rockwall counties
39
2014 Dallas area domestic violence homicides
Women: 19
Men: 14
Children: 6

[Deltaboy]

The system is broken.