TX courts stymied re: Disarming domestic violence BG's.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/ ... ion/part5/

The above article is a link to a Dallas Morning News article of Sunday, 6/1/14.
It covers the complicated issues revolving around Texas courts' attempt to disarm violent
domestic violence offenders.

Although Texas law allows the judges to mandate that domestic violence offenders may not
possess firearms, there is not often a clearcut way to disarm these people.

DALLAS County was cited as not being able to enforce this mandate. LEO's are reticent to seize
guns, store them, or destroy them. Some Texas counties do it, most do not.

TRAVIS County: Asks abusers to surrender firearms.

BEXAR County : Asks abusers to surrender firearms.

HARRIS County: Has expressed interest in confiscating firearms after domestic violence determinations,
but has not acted to do so.

EL PASO County: Developed a well-regarded program to confiscate guns from abusers that was used as a
model for other Texas counties, but the program has fallen by the wayside since the judge in charge of it
has left office.

SIA

[rbwhatever1]

According to the article, both of these federal and state laws need to be null and void. Laws stripping Americans of Natural Rights should apply to all citizens regardless of their status in society. Looks to me like a tyrannical jack booted Law was put in place...

"Under federal and state law, it is illegal for convicted domestic abusers and subjects of protective orders to possess firearms, with certain exceptions for police and the military"

[MeMelYup]

According to the article, both of these federal and state laws need to be null and void. Laws stripping Americans of Natural Rights should apply to all citizens regardless of their status in society. Looks to me like a tyrannical jack booted Law was put in place...

"Under federal and state law, it is illegal for convicted domestic abusers and subjects of protective orders to possess firearms, with certain exceptions for police and the military"

I can see the exception for the military, but no one else. I don't agree with the laws.

[TomV]

Maybe I'm confused...

Are you saying someone convicted of domestic violence or under protective orders should have unfettered access to a firearm?

[jmra]

Maybe I'm confused...

Are you saying someone convicted of domestic violence or under protective orders should have unfettered access to a firearm?

If someone is convicted I'd say no. But I don't believe anyone should lose their rights based on an accusation.

[baldeagle]

According to the article, both of these federal and state laws need to be null and void. Laws stripping Americans of Natural Rights should apply to all citizens regardless of their status in society. Looks to me like a tyrannical jack booted Law was put in place...

"Under federal and state law, it is illegal for convicted domestic abusers and subjects of protective orders to possess firearms, with certain exceptions for police and the military"

Persons convicted of violations of the law deserve to have their rights stripped away. Even the founding fathers believed that. Rights are not absolute. They are conditional. You forfeit them when you harm other people. If you can't live in society without harming others, you don't deserve the rights that were naturally yours when you behaved yourself.

[TomV]

Maybe what I'm misunderstanding is the exception for police and military.

Is it the exception that people are objecting to? These people should be subject to the same rules as everyone else?

According to the article, it doesn't look like it is a blanket exception. So, what are the circumstances where they are excepted?

Should a police officer who is CONVICTED of domestic violence even be allowed to continue to be a police officer?

Last question(s), for now, once convicted, should they be disarmed and if so, how? This is actually where the problem really is.

[A-R]

Maybe I'm confused...

Are you saying someone convicted of domestic violence or under protective orders should have unfettered access to a firearm?

If someone is convicted I'd say no. But I don't believe anyone should lose their rights based on an accusation.

So criminal suspects, based on probable cause, should not be arrested until they're convicted? Being arrested is just as much a violation of your 4th Amendment rights as having your guns confiscated is a violation if you 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, if we're done talking in absolutes, perhaps the better discussion is to better define the terms under which rights may be lawfully violated? For instance, with probable cause and due process and no "permanent" loss of rights without conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction.

[A-R]

According to the article, both of these federal and state laws need to be null and void. Laws stripping Americans of Natural Rights should apply to all citizens regardless of their status in society. Looks to me like a tyrannical jack booted Law was put in place...

"Under federal and state law, it is illegal for convicted domestic abusers and subjects of protective orders to possess firearms, with certain exceptions for police and the military"

Persons convicted of violations of the law deserve to have their rights stripped away. Even the founding fathers believed that. Rights are not absolute. They are conditional. You forfeit them when you harm other people. If you can't live in society without harming others, you don't deserve the rights that were naturally yours when you behaved yourself.

THIS

[jmra]

Maybe I'm confused...

Are you saying someone convicted of domestic violence or under protective orders should have unfettered access to a firearm?

If someone is convicted I'd say no. But I don't believe anyone should lose their rights based on an accusation.

So criminal suspects, based on probable cause, should not be arrested until they're convicted? Being arrested is just as much a violation of your 4th Amendment rights as having your guns confiscated is a violation if you 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, if we're done talking in absolutes, perhaps the better discussion is to better define the terms under which rights may be lawfully violated? For instance, with probable cause and due process and no "permanent" loss of rights without conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Response deleted.

[A-R]

Lastly, the real difference in much of these, for lack of a better term, "grey areas" of firearm confiscation, is why crimes considered minor enough to warrant little or no jail time (misdemeanors) can somehow equal lifetime bans on firearm ownership but no other loss of rights or access to any other dangerous implements or freedom of movement in society.

The reason why it's possible to own knives, blunt weapons, and motorized conveyances while being prohibited from owning firearms is that society has deemed firearms the ultimate evil with no redeeming social utility ( unlike knives, hammers, and cars) and decided that people who commit relatively minor (misdemeanor) violations of law are somehow perfectly capable of again living amongst us as long as we tell them (but don't physically prevent) they cannot possess this one "ultimate evil." Thus police & military - which society has begudgingly agreed DO have a social utility for firearms - are somehow still allowed to possess firearms "for work" when convicted of the same misdemeanors that would prevent other citizens lifetime gun ownership rights.

This is the preposterously muddled state of the current grey area of firearms rights. A convicted misdeamor "domestic abuser" is free to again roam the streets, even date other potential future victims, as long as he/she doesn't own guns.

[A-R]

Maybe I'm confused...

Are you saying someone convicted of domestic violence or under protective orders should have unfettered access to a firearm?

If someone is convicted I'd say no. But I don't believe anyone should lose their rights based on an accusation.

So criminal suspects, based on probable cause, should not be arrested until they're convicted? Being arrested is just as much a violation of your 4th Amendment rights as having your guns confiscated is a violation if you 2nd Amendment rights.

Now, if we're done talking in absolutes, perhaps the better discussion is to better define the terms under which rights may be lawfully violated? For instance, with probable cause and due process and no "permanent" loss of rights without conviction in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Where did I say any of that? The comparison is apples and oranges. You can have a protective order issued against you without a shred of evidence and without being arrested for a crime. If sufficient evidence exist for an arrest then make the arrest and file charges then issue the protective order.

Until such time as you're convicted, in any case the accused is simply that - ACCUSED. Again the devil is in the details. But protective orders are not issued (by a competent judge) on "accusation alone". And restraining orders are a different animal altogether.

[baldeagle]

I don't think you should lose any rights in the case of a misdemeanor conviction. I wasn't aware that that class of convictions resulted in a lifetime ban on gun ownership. Are you certain about that? Misdemeanors are minor offenses for which you should be punished by fines or brief imprisonment, not the permanent loss of your rights.

[Jim Beaux]

Lastly, the real difference in much of these, for lack of a better term, "grey areas" of firearm confiscation, is why crimes considered minor enough to warrant little or no jail time (misdemeanors) can somehow equal lifetime bans on firearm ownership but no other loss of rights or access to any other dangerous implements or freedom of movement in society.

The reason why it's possible to own knives, blunt weapons, and motorized conveyances while being prohibited from owning firearms is that society has deemed firearms the ultimate evil with no redeeming social utility ( unlike knives, hammers, and cars) and decided that people who commit relatively minor (misdemeanor) violations of law are somehow perfectly capable of again living amongst us as long as we tell them (but don't physically prevent) they cannot possess this one "ultimate evil." Thus police & military - which society has begudgingly agreed DO have a social utility for firearms - are somehow still allowed to possess firearms "for work" when convicted of the same misdemeanors that would prevent other citizens lifetime gun ownership rights.

This is the preposterously muddled state of the current grey area of firearms rights. A convicted misdeamor "domestic abuser" is free to again roam the streets, even date other potential future victims, as long as he/she doesn't own guns.

A big thanks A-R. I am ashamed that I just accepted (like a sheep) the domestic violence penalty without question. You made an excellent point.

[tomtexan]

Here is an article that is somewhat related to this thread that is possibly about to happen in Washington D.C.

Not surprising though given the location.

D.C. proposes bill to force legal gun owners with temporary restraining orders to surrender firearms