And be sure to let us know what time you are free on visiting day. I'd sure hate to interrupt your arts & crafts time.
BTW, would you prefer your file in a chocolate or yellow cake?
stay safe.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Domestic Violence Conviction
- Thread starter hunter45
- Start date
And be sure to let us know what time you are free on visiting day. I'd sure hate to interrupt your arts & crafts time.
BTW, would you prefer your file in a chocolate or yellow cake?
stay safe.
Tanner
Regular Member
Sounds like he is about to make two legal mistakes. One being giving him the firearm when he know he is disqualified and the other being an accessory to his friends on going crime of posessing the firearms. An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. I think the ownership is not the question anymore since he cannot legally own them any longer. Am I right, wrong, or just plain stupid?
The Airframer
Regular Member
It seems clear to me-- you get convicted of Domestic Violence and you lose your gun rights.
BUT, I have been in court a few times for divorce/custody issues and seen poor old farts petitioning the courts and asking the judge to get their guns back. They usually had their miss' with them proclaiming that no threat exists. Not sure if these guys were convicted of DV or if the guns were confiscated during the initial DV police response. A few times the judge allowed them to get em back!
BUT, I have been in court a few times for divorce/custody issues and seen poor old farts petitioning the courts and asking the judge to get their guns back. They usually had their miss' with them proclaiming that no threat exists. Not sure if these guys were convicted of DV or if the guns were confiscated during the initial DV police response. A few times the judge allowed them to get em back!
There are ways to do it, but it is such a minefield that going pro se is not recommended. Being able to stay out of federal prison is worth the price for a knowledgeable attorney's assistance. An attorney that advertizes that they specialize in domestic relations is not going to necessarily be knowledgeable about this subject. Ask how many cases they have handled and what the results were. Iicking the tires is well advised.
stay safe.
stay safe.
ncwabbit
Regular Member
in response to a previous poster...DV does not necessarily encompass violent acts against someone's intimate but DV swings from mental or physical to sexual or combination of abuse(s).
This issue centers around and is truly a power and control situation between two intimates. Perpetrators exercise coercion and threats (leaving, or going to hurt, etc.), intimidation (smashing things, hitting walls, displaying weapons), emotional (name calling, putting down, etc.) or economic (controlling or taking their $$) abuse, isolation tactics (controlling when and who they talk to), minimizing or denying abuse occurred, using the children (using children to relay messages, etc), and from some cultures - male privilege (they are chattel treating and them like a servant). If it exists in an intimate’s environment there is a real possibility for severe injury escalating to death for one or both intimates involved in the DV situation.
I will point out domestic violence traits are LEARNED and can with psychoeducational sessions and therapy can be unlearned so intimates can enjoy a violence free relationship. Unfortunately, when perps are provided these remedial solutions they are already under judicial direction to participate which exacerbates their displeasure towards their intimate as well as makes remedial efforts a real uphill battle for the psychotherapist providing remediation. (tho quite satisfying to see the perp’s mental light switch turn on so they finally understand both the actual and potential harm they are doing to their intimate)
Some states are quite proactive on their DV enforcement w/no adjudication through the courts – you are guilty if police were called as someone is mandated to be arrested.
the majority of perps are men (<80%) but women are now being charged (>20%) as well. It is also a heterosexual as well as same sex intimates. With the great recession ongoing, DV charges are on the rise as frustrations within the relationship rise until arguments arise where police are called by concerned neighbors.
I will not entertain why intimates stay together in a violent relationship!
And the results as you have read in previous posts…you lose your right to own or access a firearm and very few attorneys I worked with will entertain working w/the perb to get their firearms returned as it is a like trying to corral 300 cats in a confined space.
wabbit
This issue centers around and is truly a power and control situation between two intimates. Perpetrators exercise coercion and threats (leaving, or going to hurt, etc.), intimidation (smashing things, hitting walls, displaying weapons), emotional (name calling, putting down, etc.) or economic (controlling or taking their $$) abuse, isolation tactics (controlling when and who they talk to), minimizing or denying abuse occurred, using the children (using children to relay messages, etc), and from some cultures - male privilege (they are chattel treating and them like a servant). If it exists in an intimate’s environment there is a real possibility for severe injury escalating to death for one or both intimates involved in the DV situation.
I will point out domestic violence traits are LEARNED and can with psychoeducational sessions and therapy can be unlearned so intimates can enjoy a violence free relationship. Unfortunately, when perps are provided these remedial solutions they are already under judicial direction to participate which exacerbates their displeasure towards their intimate as well as makes remedial efforts a real uphill battle for the psychotherapist providing remediation. (tho quite satisfying to see the perp’s mental light switch turn on so they finally understand both the actual and potential harm they are doing to their intimate)
Some states are quite proactive on their DV enforcement w/no adjudication through the courts – you are guilty if police were called as someone is mandated to be arrested.
the majority of perps are men (<80%) but women are now being charged (>20%) as well. It is also a heterosexual as well as same sex intimates. With the great recession ongoing, DV charges are on the rise as frustrations within the relationship rise until arguments arise where police are called by concerned neighbors.
I will not entertain why intimates stay together in a violent relationship!
And the results as you have read in previous posts…you lose your right to own or access a firearm and very few attorneys I worked with will entertain working w/the perb to get their firearms returned as it is a like trying to corral 300 cats in a confined space.
wabbit
Last edited:
So when my wife threatens to make me eat stir fry for dinner....she's committing a crime?
:banana: NO MORE STIR FRY!!!
OC for ME
Regular Member
Depends on the sodium and/or MSG content. But, on the whole stir-fry is typically considered healthy and you would likely be charged for not eating the healthy food because you hurt her feelings.....that emotional distress aspect of DV that ncwabbit pointed out.
happy wife.....happy life.
Any questions?
happy wife.....happy life.
Any questions?
ncwabbit
Regular Member
So when my wife threatens to make me eat stir fry for dinner....she's committing a crime?
If your discussion over stir fry escalates to a disturbance where police are called but let’s not get into who the victim is and who the aggressor is shall we as the handcuffs might not suit your attire and will definitately ruin your very good mood.
So sit down in the corner, do as the nice lady says, and eat your stir fry or you can’t have any pudding, how can you have pudding if you don't eat your stir fry??.
wabbit
Last edited:
So when my wife threatens to make me eat stir fry for dinner....she's committing a crime?
If your discussion over stir fry escalates to a disturbance where police are called but let’s not get into who the victim is and who the aggressor is shall we as the handcuffs might not suit your attire and will definitately ruin your very good mood.
So sit down in the corner, do as the nice lady says, and eat your stir fry or you can’t have any pudding, how can you have pudding if you don't eat your stir fry??.
wabbit
:banghead:Bummer:banghead:
But, she can't call the Cops. She tried once when I was videoing a truck accident (Real good one too)
When she dialed 911....Grapeshot answered:lol:
Last edited:
Get your facts straight....There was a court case in June 2010 called united states v white. This case was decided in the 4 th circuit court in Richmond. They decided that 18.2 57.2 assault and battery against a family members doesn't contain the element of force required to Barr them under the federal lautenberg amendments. If the convtiction was in VA then yes he can own the firearm. Not only that he can go in any gun store and pass a ffl. Please goggle what I'm saying
hunter45
Regular Member
See, I'm still getting different answers from different people in this thread. You would think that this wouldn't be too hard to figure out. I've also asked several people at the Courthouse this week and I get a different answer each time I ask. Oh well.
Ask User!
The
The answer to your question is not up to speculation. The fact is your friend can walk into any gun store and pass a FFL so yes he can own the gun. You are asking those that enforce state law about federal law, that's why you cannot get a straight answer. When the 3 panel 4th circuit court reached their decision that change who was banned under the Lautenberg law. If conviction was in virginia there is no record of force in the warrant or judges final therefore the conviction does not contain an element of force. If you read the case law that I posted earlier it will all make sense. Call Dan Hawes at his office he is a brilliant firearms attorney and will give you the same answer I just gave you.
The answer to your question is not up to speculation. The fact is your friend can walk into any gun store and pass a FFL so yes he can own the gun. You are asking those that enforce state law about federal law, that's why you cannot get a straight answer. When the 3 panel 4th circuit court reached their decision that change who was banned under the Lautenberg law. If conviction was in virginia there is no record of force in the warrant or judges final therefore the conviction does not contain an element of force. If you read the case law that I posted earlier it will all make sense. Call Dan Hawes at his office he is a brilliant firearms attorney and will give you the same answer I just gave you.
United States v. White applies to the question of whether the indictment (charge) specifies that violence was part of the offense -- not that all charges under 18.2-57.2 fail to meet the requirements of Lautenberg. Thinking that the decision says anything else is dangerous, and telling someone else that is dangerous in the extreme.
United States v. White merely put the Commonwealth on notice that if they wanted to convict someone of a violent crime they must specify in the indictment that there was violence involved. The decision hinged on the fact that Virginia relies on the Common Law definition of battery and that the court found that definition wanting in demonstrating that "violence" was an aspect or element of the crime. Nothing else. United States v. White does not give blanket protection from the impact of Lautenberg.
I am once again reduced to :banghead::cuss::banghead: because someone latches onto case law and declares that it applies to and/or controls all aspects of the issue, instead of reading the plain wording of the decision. Were it not for that pesky double jeopardy thing the Commonwealth might have gone back, added a phrase along the lines of "with physical violence" to the indictment, and nailed Mr. White's 2A rights to the barn wall to dry and wither. The case, as noted clearly by the court, hinged solely on the fact that they blew the paperwork, not that the crime as described in the Code of Virginia could never cause one to lose 2A rights because of Lautenberg.
I await User's response, should he decide to offer his thoughts, if only because he also reads what the law says as opposed to what people wished it said.
stay safe.
PS - Peter Nap -- it all depends on how Mrs. Nap behaves when she tells you to shut up and eat your stir fry. It's whether she waves a rolling pin in the general direction of your noggin as opposed to giving you "the look". One is merely high drama. The other is use of deadly force.
United States v. White merely put the Commonwealth on notice that if they wanted to convict someone of a violent crime they must specify in the indictment that there was violence involved. The decision hinged on the fact that Virginia relies on the Common Law definition of battery and that the court found that definition wanting in demonstrating that "violence" was an aspect or element of the crime. Nothing else. United States v. White does not give blanket protection from the impact of Lautenberg.
I am once again reduced to :banghead::cuss::banghead: because someone latches onto case law and declares that it applies to and/or controls all aspects of the issue, instead of reading the plain wording of the decision. Were it not for that pesky double jeopardy thing the Commonwealth might have gone back, added a phrase along the lines of "with physical violence" to the indictment, and nailed Mr. White's 2A rights to the barn wall to dry and wither. The case, as noted clearly by the court, hinged solely on the fact that they blew the paperwork, not that the crime as described in the Code of Virginia could never cause one to lose 2A rights because of Lautenberg.
I await User's response, should he decide to offer his thoughts, if only because he also reads what the law says as opposed to what people wished it said.
stay safe.
PS - Peter Nap -- it all depends on how Mrs. Nap behaves when she tells you to shut up and eat your stir fry. It's whether she waves a rolling pin in the general direction of your noggin as opposed to giving you "the look". One is merely high drama. The other is use of deadly force.
Roverhound
Regular Member
Ah, but the question is which is deadly force and which is high drama?
KYGlockster
Activist Member
This is incorrect. This law applies to ANY firearm that has EVER been shipped via interstate commerce. If the firearm was shipped interstate then the federal government believes they have the right to control it simply because it crossed a state line and that small clause in the Constitution SUPPOSEDLY gives them the authority. Nearly all firearms are shipped via interstate commerce from manufacturer to distributor to dealer. The only way he could possess a firearm is if it was manufactured in Virginia and never left the state. If he currently owns any firearms that were made in Virginia then he could retake possession of those firearms as long as Virginia law allows him to do so.
Last edited:
KYGlockster
Activist Member
Here is a comment for you: YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! A simple mistake in the paperwork bought White his freedom. It is rather clear that this case was reversed because there was no definition of violence, however I am sure in the OP's friends case they have fixed any and all problems in all documentation. They will never miss the chance to destroy someone's rights if they can do so, and the OP's friends rights are destroyed. He can only possess a firearm that has never been shipped in interstate commerce (assuming Virginia law does not prevent hims from doing so), and that will probably be hard to find in Virginia.