TexasCHLforum.com

They can pass all the laws they want... if no one enforces them, it's meaningless.

rbwhatever1 wrote: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"

So since you don't like the fact that there are exemptions in place for some, no domestic violence victim should expect the abuser is limited from access to firearms?

baldeagle wrote: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.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdem ... lence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jbarn wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote: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"

So since you don't like the fact that there are exemptions in place for some, no domestic violence victim should expect the abuser is limited from access to firearms?

I think the better answer is that LE shouldn't be exempt. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm, it should not matter what their profession might be. You mess up big enough, you lose your job if it involves firearms. That's how I think it should be. No animals more equal than others.

baldeagle wrote: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.

It's true.

Family violence misdemeanor convictions result in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms. This is courtesy of the Lautenberg Amendment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic ... er_Gun_Ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SQLGeek wrote:

baldeagle wrote: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.

It's true.

Family violence misdemeanor convictions result in a lifetime ban on possessing firearms. This is courtesy of the Lautenberg Amendment.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic ... er_Gun_Ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where this hit the fan was when a sle of LEO's were stripped of their weapons and placed on desk duty or fired. The issue at hand was in a majority of cases, these were persons involved in a messy divorce, spouse claimed abuse, and to make it go away they plead o the misdemeanor charge. when Lautenberg was enacted it was retroactive. Dallas lost several officers to this several years ago.

Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

WildBill wrote:

Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.

Javier730 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.

Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...

jmra wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.

Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...

Background checks are not needed for knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlight or frying pans. When a person buys a firearm, a background check is done and the seller knows not to sell the firearm to the person. They could always buy from a private individual but so can a felon. Doing that would be illegal and thats why I stated I didnt believe people who were abusive should have legal access to a firearm.

Javier730 wrote:

jmra wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.

Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...

Background checks are not needed for knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlight or frying pans. When a person buys a firearm, a background check is done and the seller knows not to sell the firearm to the person. They could always buy from a private individual but so can a felon. Doing that would be illegal and thats why I stated I didnt believe people who were abusive should have legal access to a firearm.

Utilizing that logic we should require background checks for any tool that can be used to commit murder. Very flawed logic.

jmra wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

jmra wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Javier730 wrote:Im all for taking firearms of people who are abusive in a relationship, but a majority of domestic violence cases are based on hearsay or one person trying to get at their spouse. I have seen that happen once where I unfortunately was at a friend of mines home and an argument started between him and his wife. Long story short, his wife called the police and claimed he struck her and the police officer paid no attention to what he or I had to say. In my opinion, the officer seemed like he was trying to be a hero and impress the wife. He was being verbally agressive to my friend and in my opinion unnecesarily man handling him after placing him in handcuffs. I know not all police are like that but just felt like throwing that out.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

When a person is abusive in a relationship, they can use a firearm as something to keep the other person in fear of leaving the relationship. I dont believe that someone who slaps, chokes or punches a person they supposedly love should legally have access to a firearm. I would hate to see what they would do to someone they dont care about. That being said, some people are wrongfully convicted. Its a tough one to call.

Then you should also prevent them from having knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlights, frying pans,...

Background checks are not needed for knives, hammers, crowbars, large flashlight or frying pans. When a person buys a firearm, a background check is done and the seller knows not to sell the firearm to the person. They could always buy from a private individual but so can a felon. Doing that would be illegal and thats why I stated I didnt believe people who were abusive should have legal access to a firearm.

Utilizing that logic we should require background checks for any tool that can be used to commit murder. Very flawed logic.

Anything can be used to commit violence thats why I said its a tough one to call.

Why are they're having so much difficulty disarming convicted felons in prison?

baldeagle wrote: "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."


I agree with your statement completely. The only thing I have a problem with are Laws that contain exceptions for classes of people. Criminal Laws should apply to all citizens equally regardless of profession. It matters none what those exceptions are. The fact that they exist at all is ridiculous.