• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Abuse Victims, Life Just Got Harder

jaeger19 said:
Yep.. educated.. the law went too far. That's why it was taken out in the final bill.

Heck.. the guy could be convicted from a girl he dated twice 30 years ago.. who accused him of verbal abuse. with no gun involved".. or accused him of stalking". and got a misdemeanor charge..

and now he cannot own a firearm. Though he has had a firearm for the last 30 years and committed no offenses with it.

Actually.. I believe that one of the reasons it was taken out was because a significant number of police officers would lose the right to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

That is such bull****. You do not get a conviction from a 30-year old accusation. And, if you are convicted of stalking, you probably were ****ing stalking. It's one of the hardest cases out there to prove in court.
 
calamity said:
That is such bull****. You do not get a conviction from a 30-year old accusation. And, if you are convicted of stalking, you probably were ****ing stalking. It's one of the hardest cases out there to prove in court.
Click to expand...

No you obtuse fellow. You got a conviction because when you were 18..you dated a whackadoo, and were to young and stupid to realize it and you ended up catching a "stalking charge"..

Now you are 48 years old.. and have never hurt anyone, nor had any other issue with the police.. and suddenly.. you are ineligible to purchase a firearm because of this law.
 
jaeger19 said:
No you obtuse fellow. You got a conviction because when you were 18..you dated a whackadoo, and were to young and stupid to realize it and you ended up catching a "stalking charge"..

Now you are 48 years old.. and have never hurt anyone, nor had any other issue with the police.. and suddenly.. you are ineligible to purchase a firearm because of this law.
Click to expand...

Please site the state that even had stalking laws on the books 30 years ago.

I repeat, anyone with a conviction for stalking probably was stalking.
 
Rich2018 said:
Not saying you're wrong, but what due process ?
Click to expand...

In some states, but not all, there are temporary restraining orders put in place which prohibit gun possession as soon as someone is charged with a crime, released on bail, put on probation or paroled from prison, even if said cases are misdemeanor offences such as drunk driving. Of course, those are lifted as soon as the cases are closed.

As for those charged with stalking and domestic abuse, the prohibition makes sense. It may do little good in preventing a motivated nut from committing murder, but it does add time to the charges if the person violates the terms of their release. And that is a good thing.
 
calamity said:
Please site the state that even had stalking laws on the books 30 years ago.

I repeat, anyone with a conviction for stalking probably was stalking.
Click to expand...

NYS.

and you can say "anyone with a conviction of stalking was stalking". That's your opinion.. and not based on anything legal.

The question is.. does a guy who was 18 and got convicted of a misdemeanor stalking.. when he was 18 on a girl he dated three times. And he has spent the next 30 years.. without any legal issues etc.. .. now should lose his firearms.. because this law went into effect?.
 
Rich2018 said:
Not saying you're wrong, but what due process ?
Click to expand...

The justice system shouldn't get a second bite at the apple.

A fellow who was 18 got a misdemeanor conviction.. (which could have meant that he plead guilty even though he wasn't guilty because pleading guilty was cheaper than going to trial...happens all the time). He plead guilty based on it being a misdemeanor and maybe him having parole for a year and community service.

But now.. 30 years later.. and no legal issues... he suddenly loses his firearms.. because this law now goes into effect and suddenly he is ineligible.
 
calamity said:
In some states, but not all, there are temporary restraining orders put in place which prohibit gun possession as soon as someone is charged with a crime, released on bail, put on probation or paroled from prison, even if said cases are misdemeanor offences such as drunk driving. Of course, those are lifted as soon as the cases are closed.

As for those charged with stalking and domestic abuse, the prohibition makes sense. It may do little good in preventing a motivated nut from committing murder, but it does add time to the charges if the person violates the terms of their release. And that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Bingo.. it does nothing to stop abuse. And.. with our justice system.. now you got a guy sitting in jail for a violation.. when he isn't really a danger. And meanwhile.. a fellow who is a danger.. gets a lighter sentence because the jails are full.
 
jaeger19 said:
Bingo.. it does nothing to stop abuse. And.. with our justice system.. now you got a guy sitting in jail for a violation.. when he isn't really a danger. And meanwhile.. a fellow who is a danger.. gets a lighter sentence because the jails are full.
Click to expand...
Actually, stalkers and abusers are definitely a danger.

Domestic abuse: Killers 'follow eight-stage pattern', study says - BBC News

The eight steps she discovered in almost all of the 372 killings she studied were:

  • A pre-relationship history of stalking or abuse by the perpetrator
  • The romance developing quickly into a serious relationship
  • The relationship becoming dominated by coercive control
  • A trigger to threaten the perpetrator's control - for example, the relationship ends or the perpetrator gets into financial difficulty
  • Escalation - an increase in the intensity or frequency of the partner's control tactics, such as by stalking or threatening suicide
  • The perpetrator has a change in thinking - choosing to move on, either through revenge or by homicide
  • Planning - the perpetrator might buy weapons or seek opportunities to get the victim alone
  • Homicide - the perpetrator kills his or her partner, and possibly hurts others such as the victim's children


The only instance where a stage in the model was not followed was when men did not meet stage one - but this was normally because they had not had a relationship before, she said.
Click to expand...
 
calamity said:
In some states, but not all, there are temporary restraining orders put in place which prohibit gun possession as soon as someone is charged with a crime, released on bail, put on probation or paroled from prison, even if said cases are misdemeanor offences such as drunk driving. Of course, those are lifted as soon as the cases are closed.

As for those charged with stalking and domestic abuse, the prohibition makes sense. It may do little good in preventing a motivated nut from committing murder, but it does add time to the charges if the person violates the terms of their release. And that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

And you reckon that the NRA are opposed to all that ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Is there anyone the NRA opposes having a gun if they pay for annual membership I wonder ?
Click to expand...

Well, we saw how that whole Russian mole thing played out. :lamo

180717_gma_thomas5_0711_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg
 
Rich2018 said:
God, I'd forgotten all about Maria Butina.
Click to expand...

The NRA wishes everyone would. But, I hate them enough to never let it go, especially after reading the replies to Shannon Watts' Twitter feed, some even suggesting she should be raped.

If those bastards have proven anything to me, it's that they should not be carrying guns.
 
calamity said:
The NRA wishes everyone would. But, I hate them enough to never let it go, especially after reading the replies to Shannon Watts' Twitter feed, some even suggesting she should be raped.

If those bastards have proven anything to me, it's that they should not be carrying guns.
Click to expand...

You're right to do so

The NRA has long since betrayed its roots.
 
Rich2018 said:
You're right to do so

The NRA has long since betrayed its roots.
Click to expand...

Yes, normal gun owners do not tweet rape fantasies at a mother whose son was gunned down.
 
Rich2018 said:
Until that person tries to take away their precious gun.
Click to expand...

Ironically no one is doing that. At most, a few people are suggesting we stop selling assault rifles and a lot of people are demanding we tighten up background checks on the purchase of new weapons. I have not seen one person out there of any consequence suggest we take away people's guns.
 
calamity said:
Ironically no one is doing that. At most, a few people are suggesting we stop selling assault rifles and a lot of people are demanding we tighten up background checks on the purchase of new weapons. I have not seen one person out there of any consequence suggest we take away people's guns.
Click to expand...

No, the gun control lobby doesn't have that much national support yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom