domestic violence getting a gun

wrightme · Mar 9, 2013

KBCraig said:
It helps when people read the instructions, which for this question are found on the lower right of Page 4.

I repeat what I said above: it doesn't matter what the crime is called, it a "domestic violence" if the person convicted used or threatened physical force or a deadly weapon. It could be a trespassing conviction, but if it was borne out of using or threatening physical violence or a deadly weapon, it is a "domestic violence" conviction.

Nope. It helps when people read the instructions fully.

"if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. "

A 'trespassing conviction' does not fit the 'committed by one of the defined parties' of a domestic violence situation.

FallonJeeper · Mar 10, 2013

DVC said:
This is true for purposes of this discussion, but you should know that it is NOT true as far as crossing the border into Canada. The Canadian government access US ARREST records, but not DISPOSITION records. Thus, an arrest and booking for any crime on their list (DV, weapons-related, etc), even if you were a juvenile, will keep you from entering Canada, even if it was nol prossed. If you have some reason to want to go there, you need to get a copy of the full record to show them or may be turned back at the border.

Canada wasn't always that strict. I used to live on the border, and made frequent trips to Canada. But I will say it's been at least 10 years since I was there. Never had anybody check my background for arrests or prosecutions. They would just ask citizenship and where we were going and what we were going to do. It was actually more of a hassle coming back to the US.

DVC · Mar 10, 2013

FallonJeeper said:
Canada wasn't always that strict. I used to live on the border, and made frequent trips to Canada. But I will say it's been at least 10 years since I was there. Never had anybody check my background for arrests or prosecutions. They would just ask citizenship and where we were going and what we were going to do. It was actually more of a hassle coming back to the US.

They randomly run those checks, and not so randomly on vehicles from states which are gun-friendly. There was an article about this a while back, where someone was pulled in for the "random" check because of his Utah license ("another Mormon!"), then denied entry to Canada because of an arrest 30 years before, which was nol prossed -- they demanded that he bring PROOF that he was never convicted!

Sp0k · Mar 10, 2013

Thanks all ..we will look into this on monday...i got his papers right here and there is no where it says ... threatened physical force or a deadly weapon.

Will keep you guys up to date with this one

ty
sp0k

DON`T TREAD ON ME · Mar 10, 2013

NRS 202.360 Ownership or possession of firearm by certain persons prohibited; penalties.

1. A person shall not own or have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control any firearm if the person:

(a) Has been convicted of a felony in this or any other state, or in any political subdivision thereof, or of a felony in violation of the laws of the United States of America, unless the person has received a pardon and the pardon does not restrict his or her right to bear arms;

I see nothing in there for DV. Doesn't mean anything, Just did not see it.

There is however prohibition of a CCW permit ZFor a conviction of DV, NRS 202.3657

wrightme · Mar 10, 2013

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:
I see nothing in there for DV. Doesn't mean anything, Just did not see it.

There is however prohibition of a CCW permit ZFor a conviction of DV, NRS 202.3657

Hmm....

So NV has no statute prohibiting those convicted of DV. Federal law would still apply though.

What it might mean is that if the federal statute was reversed, NV has no statute covering that specific.

KBCraig · Mar 10, 2013

wrightme said:
"if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. "

A 'trespassing conviction' does not fit the 'committed by one of the defined parties' of a domestic violence situation.

You think a defined party can't trespass?

Domestic Party A has left Domestic Partner B, and is in a location where B has no legal right to enter or remain. B shows up and threatens use of a deadly weapon. Police show up, and it's "A said"/"B said". B refuses to leave, and is arrested.

After negotiating a tough-to-prove case, the prosecutor lets B plead guilty to trespassing, a misdemeanor equivalent to a speeding ticket with no possibility of jail.

B was just convicted of a crime, an element of which was the threatened use of a deadly weapon against A. B is now a prohibited person.

vegaspassat · Mar 10, 2013

This thread is why I love this forum. A healthy debate based on what the laws do and don't say. Not a misguided crucifixion of the OP because everyone thinks "woman beater" when they hear domestic violence.

wrightme · Mar 10, 2013

KBCraig said:
You think a defined party can't trespass?

Nope, that isn't it at all.

Your post appeared to falsely label simple trespass with a firearm as being the same as a DV conviction. It isn't.

NOW you alter it to be 'trespass upon a DV defined party. That isn't the same as what you attempted to pass off.

As to your example, if B pleads to trespassing, he isn't a prohibited person. It has no element of 'threaten'. I think you are reading too much into it.

"Trespass" does not include 'an element of.'

KBCraig · Mar 11, 2013

wrightme said:
Your post appeared to falsely label simple trespass with a firearm as being the same as a DV conviction. It isn't.

NOW you alter it to be 'trespass upon a DV defined party. That isn't the same as what you attempted to pass off.

It would be helpful if you actually read what I wrote before accusing me of trying to alter it.

KBCraig said:
Under Lautenberg, it doesn't matter what he was actually charged with or convicted of, or what the sentence was. All that matters are the elements of the offense, which means no one can answer the question without knowing all the details of what happened.

Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace is not a prohibited person.

Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace because he was screaming threats against a family member, is a prohibited person.

KBCraig said:
It helps when people read the instructions, which for this question are found on the lower right of Page 4.

I repeat what I said above: it doesn't matter what the crime is called, it a "domestic violence" if the person convicted used or threatened physical force or a deadly weapon. It could be a trespassing conviction, but if it was borne out of using or threatening physical violence or a deadly weapon, it is a "domestic violence" conviction.

Felid`Maximus · Mar 11, 2013

wrightme said:
Hmm....

So NV has no statute prohibiting those convicted of DV. Federal law would still apply though.

What it might mean is that if the federal statute was reversed, NV has no statute covering that specific.

Correct... Also, it means that in NV with a DV conviction you can still own a cap and ball revolver, since it isn't a firearm under Fed law.

This video (not mine, random youtube) shows it can be a very effective weapon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqEgijuCu4

wrightme · Mar 11, 2013

KBCraig said:
It would be helpful if you actually read what I wrote before accusing me of trying to alter it.

Your conclusions are incorrect.

Simple trespass or disturbing the peace, do NOT make one a prohibited person. Whether it is against a family member or not.

If a person is arrested for DV with a firearm, and as you allege, due to a difficulty prosecuting that charge it is plead down to trespass, it no longer has any element of dv in the conviction. It isn't a charge that creates a prohibition against owning firearms.

It isn't a matter of 'what the crime is called,' it is a matter of what charge a person is actually convicted of.

As example, if a driver were stopped, tested, and arrested for suspicion of dui, and due to a procedural problem in the stop, gets it decreased to a charge of 'negligent driving,' it is no longer a crime involving a dui.

Under Lautenberg, it DOES matter what charge a person is convicted of.

"Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace because he was screaming threats against a family member, is a prohibited person." No. Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace, got charged with disturbing the peace, not with 'disturbing the peace against a family member.'

wrightme · Mar 11, 2013

KBCraig said:
You think a defined party can't trespass?

Domestic Party A has left Domestic Partner B, and is in a location where B has no legal right to enter or remain. B shows up and threatens use of a deadly weapon. Police show up, and it's "A said"/"B said". B refuses to leave, and is arrested.

After negotiating a tough-to-prove case, the prosecutor lets B plead guilty to trespassing, a misdemeanor equivalent to a speeding ticket with no possibility of jail.

B was just convicted of a crime, an element of which was the threatened use of a deadly weapon against A. B is now a prohibited person.

I simply do not see how you believe that.

No, B was just convicted of trespass. If they cannot convict of a threatened used of a deadly weapon, B isn't guilty of a crime that prohibits him from owning a firearm.

"Trespass" isn't a charge that includes "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or
the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse,
parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a
child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with, or has cohabited with
the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to
a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. The term includes all misdemeanors
that have as an element the use or attempted use of physical force or the
threatened use of a deadly weapon "

Trespass is a charge that includes as elements 'illegal entry'.

The portion you are reading too much into, is the wording that covers states that may not have statute that clearly states 'domestic violence.' Trespass would not fit the 'elements of' test.

But, 'battery of spouse with a deadly weapon,' would fit the 'elements of' test. If 'battery of spouse with a deadly weapon' was plead down to 'trespass,' it no longer fits the 'elements of' test.

KBCraig · Mar 11, 2013

wrightme said:
Your conclusions are incorrect.

They very well might be, but I did not alter my argument, and I'll thank you to not make such an accusation.

If I am incorrect, I'm incorrect. I won't twist my own position around just to win.

I might be wrong... but would you bet your ability to legally own firearms on whether or not some prosecutor would go after you after a conviction like I described?

wrightme · Mar 11, 2013

KBCraig said:
They very well might be, but I did not alter my argument, and I'll thank you to not make such an accusation.

Yet, by your own quotes, you did alter it. Maybe not your intended meaning, but your words did redefine it.

KBCraig said:
If I am incorrect, I'm incorrect. I won't twist my own position around just to win.

I might be wrong... but would you bet your ability to legally own firearms on whether or not some prosecutor would go after you after a conviction like I described?

A conviction like you described would be 'trespass,' not 'domestic violence.' If the prosecution cannot prove their case, the elements don't stick to the defendant.

I edited to add 'the wording is for states without clearly defined dv statute,' not 'to cover a blanket over failure to prosecute.'

wrightme · Mar 11, 2013

You made no mention whatsoever of 'against a family member.'

KBCraig said:
It helps when people read the instructions, which for this question are found on the lower right of Page 4.

I repeat what I said above: it doesn't matter what the crime is called, it a "domestic violence" if the person convicted used or threatened physical force or a deadly weapon. It could be a trespassing conviction, but if it was borne out of using or threatening physical violence or a deadly weapon, it is a "domestic violence" conviction.

Here it does make that mention.

KBCraig said:
Under Lautenberg, it doesn't matter what he was actually charged with or convicted of, or what the sentence was. All that matters are the elements of the offense, which means no one can answer the question without knowing all the details of what happened.

Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace is not a prohibited person.

Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace because he was screaming threats against a family member, is a prohibited person.

KBCraig · Mar 12, 2013

wrightme said:
Yet, by your own quotes, you did alter it.
No, I didn't.

wrightme said:

You made no mention whatsoever of 'against a family member.'

Click to expand...

Who else could we possibly be talking about in the context of domestic violence?

Here it does make that mention.

Click to expand...

Yes, in the quote that came first, I said family member, then in the second post (which you posted out of order to appear as if I'd said it first), I didn't use the specific phrase when referring to my earlier post, where I did use the specific phrase.

Talk about over-thinking things to win an argument...

wrightme · Mar 12, 2013

KBCraig said:
No, I didn't.

Who else could we possibly be talking about in the context of domestic violence?

Sigh. You implied the case would be plead down to a trespassing. A trespass charge, isn't a crime of dv, no matter how much verbiage you add. It isn't logical to assume you meant something not covered by statute.

KBCraig said:
Yes, in the quote that came first, I said family member, then in the second post (which you posted out of order to appear as if I'd said it first), I didn't use the specific phrase when referring to my earlier post, where I did use the specific phrase.

Talk about over-thinking things to win an argument...

It isn't about over-thinking. In one post, you referred to family members, in another one, you didn't.

You can either look at it how it looks to others, or continue to see it as you meant it.

But, I do see that I did cite your posts out of order. It was not intentional. I do apologize for that specific.

wrightme · Mar 12, 2013

KBCraig said:
Under Lautenberg, it doesn't matter what he was actually charged with or convicted of, or what the sentence was. All that matters are the elements of the offense, which means no one can answer the question without knowing all the details of what happened.

Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace is not a prohibited person.

Someone who gets a $250 fine for disturbing the peace because he was screaming threats against a family member, is a prohibited person.

Your second scenario is simply not true.

A 'disturbing the peace' charge is simply that, disturbing the peace. It would not make one a prohibited person, no matter which post you put first.

FallonJeeper · Mar 13, 2013

[/Sarcasm]And... if you are carrying a firearm it's aggravated trespass. [/Sarcasm Off]

domestic violence getting a gun

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member