Should You Lose Your 2A Rights If Convicted Of Domestic Abuse?


What's your opinion?

Link Removed
 

Brainchild

New member
My problem with the 'no' side is that the author keeps referring to the RKBA as a 'privelage granted by the Constitution'.It is not so.It is a RIGHT,granted by our Creator,and RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.
As for with the 'yes' side,how does society have the authority to strip away an individual's rights if he is accused of something,but not convicted?Until a conviction is reached,he is still a free individual.If I accuse someone of being a homosexual pedophile,should he not be allowed around young boys,even his own sons,simply because I said he did,or might do something wrong?
As for the answer to the original question,should someone commits domestic violence lose his right to keep and bear arms?I do not have an answer.I am not a domestic abuser,and niether was my father or mother,so,thank God,I have no experience with that nightmare.
 

HK4U

New member
2nd amendment

My problem with the 'no' side is that the author keeps referring to the RKBA as a 'privelage granted by the Constitution'.It is not so.It is a RIGHT,granted by our Creator,and RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.
As for with the 'yes' side,how does society have the authority to strip away an individual's rights if he is accused of something,but not convicted?Until a conviction is reached,he is still a free individual.If I accuse someone of being a homosexual pedophile,should he not be allowed around young boys,even his own sons,simply because I said he did,or might do something wrong?
As for the answer to the original question,should someone commits domestic violence lose his right to keep and bear arms?I do not have an answer.I am not a domestic abuser,and niether was my father or mother,so,thank God,I have no experience with that nightmare.


QUOTE=Brainchild;12886]My problem with the 'no' side is that the author keeps referring to the RKBA as a 'privelage granted by the Constitution'.It is not so.It is a RIGHT,granted by our Creator,and RECOGNIZED by the Constitution.

+1 for me.
 
E

echo_5

Guest
'convicted' abusers should not.....

.....be allowed to own firearms because it's already proven that they cannot control their rage and are prone to violence. As responsible gun owners we need to police our own ranks so that anti-2A'ers do not. Just as persons convicted of multiple DUIs have driving priveleges taken away so should violent people be denied the right to own weapons (Lautenberg Amendment).

-my $.02
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
.....be allowed to own firearms because it's already proven that they cannot control their rage and are prone to violence. As responsible gun owners we need to police our own ranks so that anti-2A'ers do not. Just as persons convicted of multiple DUIs have driving priveleges taken away so should violent people be denied the right to own weapons (Lautenberg Amendment).

-my $.02

Lemme see...where are you from...Connecticut? Ah yes...I understand. However, you all misspelled privilege.
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
Here's a little tidbit. The number of gun deaths vs non-gun deaths in intimate (spouses, etc.) homicides from 1975 to 2005 declined steadily to the point where they were almost on a par. If the trend continued through 2007, non-gun deaths in intimate homicides (same as domestic violence) may well outnumber gun deaths now. In any event, in domestic violence, it's not at all unusual for something other than a gun to be used.

Link Removed

Sic transit gloria mundi
 
Here's a little tidbit. The number of gun deaths vs non-gun deaths in intimate (spouses, etc.) homicides from 1975 to 2005 declined steadily to the point where they were almost on a par. If the trend continued through 2007, non-gun deaths in intimate homicides (same as domestic violence) may well outnumber gun deaths now. In any event, in domestic violence, it's not at all unusual for something other than a gun to be used.

Link Removed

Sic transit gloria mundi

It doesn't matter what an individual used to kill. It shows they are unable, or just plain don't care, to handle the tremendous responsibility that comes with 2A RIGHTS. For this reason, in my opinion, anyone CONVICTED of a violent crime (murder, rape, child abuse, armed robbery, etc.) should lose that right. Note, when I say rape I mean without permission rape, not statutory rape between an 18 year old and a 16/ 17 year old where it was consensual relations.
 

gvaldeg1

NRA Member
It doesn't matter what an individual used to kill. It shows they are unable, or just plain don't care, to handle the tremendous responsibility that comes with 2A RIGHTS. For this reason, in my opinion, anyone CONVICTED of a violent crime (murder, rape, child abuse, armed robbery, etc.) should lose that right. Note, when I say rape I mean without permission rape, not statutory rape between an 18 year old and a 16/ 17 year old where it was consensual relations.

WOW...you got your wish! In case you hadn't noticed, all of the crimes that you discussed are felonies for which you automatically lose your civil rights including the right to vote or even buy a gun. I only posted the link because I thought that it was an interesting statistic. Remember this thread is about "domestic violence" which in many cases may be only a misdemeanor. The Lautenberg Amendment imposes felony punishments upon even misdemeanor offenses. I have to admit that I got a little sarcastic in one of my posts but just seeing Lautenberg's name causes me to shudder. Sorry for the sarcasm, I know that a lot of you in anti-gun states and areas are as upset about it as I.
 
WOW...you got your wish! In case you hadn't noticed, all of the crimes that you discussed are felonies for which you automatically lose your civil rights including the right to vote or even buy a gun. I only posted the link because I thought that it was an interesting statistic. Remember this thread is about "domestic violence" which in many cases may be only a misdemeanor. The Lautenberg Amendment imposes felony punishments upon even misdemeanor offenses. I have to admit that I got a little sarcastic in one of my posts but just seeing Lautenberg's name causes me to shudder. Sorry for the sarcasm, I know that a lot of you in anti-gun states and areas are as upset about it as I.

No need to apologize. My response was just a rebuttal to your post and not meant to offend either. It's not really my wish that this be the law because, like so many laws, it can be misused. Cases like a spouse accusing one of abuse just to make a point or in a fight for child custody. Sometimes these false accusations can be hard to defend against since the one being accused of abuse must prove their innocence instead of the accuser proving guilt. That's why I stressed "convicted" not just accused.
 
I feel that the cases should be handled on an individual basis. Maybe a husband and wife had an argument, and due to some stupid law, both of them were arrested and charged with "domestic violence" crimes that fall under Lautenberg legislation. Now that they're both disqualified from owning firearms for life, their ability to make a living may be in serious jeapordy. I had a buddy who was a wildlife technician. In almost 20 years on the job, he never needed to use a firearm. His job description required that he be able to handle and possess firearms in case there were "preadatory control" aspects of the job. His misdemeanor conviction of "domestic violence" (basically a shouting match with the wife) cost him his job and he's now struggling to make ends meet.

The Lautenberg legislation has good intentions, but in my opinion is too general in how it's written. Judges should be trusted to evaluate evidence on a case by case basis and render the proper judgement. There needs to be some leeway in cases where "special circumstances" exist.


gf
 

Fallguy

Citizen
In most states it takes at least two DUI convictions within a certain time frame before you can't get a license to carry.

One arrest and/or conviction does not make a habitual offender.
 

LVLouisCyphre

Obama is a mack daddy!
Absolutely not...

The legislation should be amended for habitual offenders. The Lautenberg Amendment has been abused too many times. There have been cases of persons discharged from the military or fired from law enforcement agencies because of a domestic violence charge that had no merit. There also have been cases of persons abusing the amendment just to vindictively suspend or revoke someone's 2A rights.

The only saving grace of the Lautenberg Amendment is the probitions are State level crimes, a good attorney can have the conviction appealed. If the conviction occurred in a 2A friendly jurisdiction and there's little to no merit to the conviction your 2A rights can be restored.
 
The legislation should be amended for habitual offenders. The Lautenberg Amendment has been abused too many times. There have been cases of persons discharged from the military or fired from law enforcement agencies because of a domestic violence charge that had no merit. There also have been cases of persons abusing the amendment just to vindictively suspend or revoke someone's 2A rights.

The only saving grace of the Lautenberg Amendment is the probitions are State level crimes, a good attorney can have the conviction appealed. If the conviction occurred in a 2A friendly jurisdiction and there's little to no merit to the conviction your 2A rights can be restored.

While I agree the Lautenberg Amendment, like many, is obscure I don't agree with changing the wording to "habitual". If someone is already so prone to anger that they can lose control and beat their spouse, or kids, they have already demonstrated their inability to handle a firearm safely. It won't rally matter whether it's against the law, or not, getting a gun will be possible. Having it illegal for an abuser to have a firearm allows the court to ad additional crimes to the sentence and possibly save a life. I understand that any law can be misused and sincerely wish that NO firearms laws would be necessary, however, I don't believe that to be the case.
 
E

echo_5

Guest
enlighten me please..

I agree that all people of mature age and clear background are allowed to own firearms but is there anyone out there who will suggest to me that people convicted of domestic violence should be allowed to own a firearm? To be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the 2A but, when individuals show that violence and aggression can't be controlled then it is obvious to me that gun-owning privileges should be revoked. I keep an open mind and promise to respond to intelligent debate.
 

robiewan

New member
Domestic Abuse

As with anything, when an individual is Actually found to be guilty through a trial, or through confession, and spends their time being "rehabilitated," when they return to society their rights ought to be restored to them.
On the other hand, when an individual has only been accused (and as someone pointed out--the abuse for this is astronomical when custody is in the mix for a divorce!) of domestic abuse they have every right to not only face their accuser in court, but they are Innocent until it is proven they are guilty - if indeed they are. Therefore rights ought not be eliminated if one has only been accused. I can see, to some degree, the validity of temporary restrictions, but upon acquittal those rights ought to be restored in full without penalty, or without having to go to court to retrieve your rights! And any weapon which may have been confiscated ought to be Immediately restored to the owner.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,354
Messages
622,661
Members
74,170
Latest member
Strategicfirearmtraining
Top