I’m pitting a thread (here) rather than any particular poster.
Apparently there are any number of people here at SDMB who think it’s unjust that people who have been convicted of, and/or pled guilty to, *violent crimes *should be prohibited from owning firearms.
Amazing.
Cite?
I looked through that thread, and that’s not what I took away from it.
There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc. The Lautenberg Amendment is a spectacular overreach and always has been. The stories are myriad about people who call the cops on their significant other only to find out that crying wolf on domestic violence just to win a fight results in prosecution, and a plea bargain in a DV case removes gun rights. It is a particular problem in the military, because that extends to service firearms, and if you can’t carry one at any time you’re out.
Each case should be judged on its own merits(or lack thereof), instead of a blanket proscription. If we take the subject of the OP at his word, it’s one of those outlying cases that perhaps ought not result in a right lost. In any case, none of that constitutes support for the (scare quotes) “violent criminals” you’re talking about, any more than supporting the legalization of marijuana means I support “drug dealers”.
I didn’t say anything about “support for violent criminals.”
That said, someone who has been convicted of a violent crime is a violent criminal. I do not agree that “[t]here are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances.”
I don’t see why someone who was convicted of punching his wife should be given any more slack than someone who was convicted of punching someone in a road rage incident.
If that person believes his or her conviction was unjust, that’s what appeals are for.
End of story.
I see. So if my wife attacks me and I defend myself by punching her she is a victim of domestic violence and as an offender I lose my rights. No nuance, no shades of gray whatsoever, right?
If you are found guilty of domestic violence, you lose your right to possess a firearm. That is correct. No shades of gray. You lose it, since apparently the court was not convinced by your claim of self-defense.
On the other hand, if your defense to the charge of domestic violence is that you were acting in self-defense, and you are acquitted, you don’t lose your right to possess a firearm. No shades of gray.
That seems pretty clear.
To be fair, if you win the appeal, nothing about the past changes. FGE had his guns taken away for hitting (slapping) someone in self defense. He chose not to fight the charge so he could be done with it and now carries the DV charge.
If he appeals it and gets it tossed out, he STILL slapped her in self defense, the only thing that changes is that the DV charge gone.
That’s a nuance. Yes, he hit her, but it was only in self defense.
Someone who slapped their wife might be the same as someone who slapped someone during a road rage incident. Those arn’t shades of gray. Shades of gray are the difference between someone who slapped their wife (ignoring the self defense part) vs someone who tied her to a chair and beat the shit out of her. It’s the difference between someone who slapped their wife and someone who rapes her on a regular basis. It’s the difference between someone who slaps their wife and someone who gets drunk and threatens his wife with a gun.
You really think all that’s the same? Having said that, when I read the (other) OP a few days ago, and I haven’t read the rest of the thread, my first thought was that the OP was had a charge that required him not to poses a gun. It’s not personal, it’s just how it is.
Wait…did you actually read that thread? The court didn’t believe his claim of self defense because he never made that claim to the court. He was charged with DV after the incident and he chose not to fight the charge.
Had he told the cops, right then and there, that he slapped her in self defense because she was trying to gouge his eyes out, this all may have played out differently. If they could get even a shred of corroboration, it would have been her going to jail as the aggressor (in his jurisdiction, one party MUST get arrested in DV situations). However, when the cops got there, he admitted to slapping her, left it at that and was arrested and charged.
Your faith in the infallibility of the criminal justice system is quite amazing. Do you come from a planet where humans never make mistakes and officials are never corrupt?
Yes. I actually read the thread. My post was in response to Airman Doors, USAF’s hypothetical. I thought that was clear, because I quoted AD’s post and responded immediately below the quote. My apologies if it wasn’t clear.
That said, if someone chooses not to dispute a charge, they they kind of have to accept the consequences, right? They’re not claiming any kind of extenuating circumstances, or claiming that it didn’t happen, or anything like that.
I don’t see why we have to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn’t deny or dispute the charges.
Of course not. But by that logic, well, maybe that dude convicted of sticking up the liquor store was the victim of corrupt officials – we should be fine with letting him have a carry permit, right?
Nonetheless, seems like a lot of people think that it makes perfect sense to deny firearms to people convicted of violent crimes, but if said violence is committed upon one’s wife or girlfriend or the mother of one’s children, hey, wait a minute, now we’re into a gray area, maybe there were extenuating circumstances, let’s not be too hasty.
That’s a bit disturbing.
Are we now arguing in earnest that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns because women “cry wolf” about domestic violence?
Really?
he’d be perfect as a criminal judge in Japan.
are we now already at the phase where we just make up whatever it is we think the argument is about and rail against that?
That was, like, the point of the entire thread.
In fact, the last line of the OP is "But…I WAS guilty of that. That DID happen. And then now so did this as a result. Thought it’d be an interesting share on the old Doperino. Your thoughts? "
The OP is basically just FGE telling us how hitting someone in self defense and not fighting the charge caught up with him 16 years later.
That’s not how self defense works. I’m not sure if you don’t understand self defense or if you’re trying and failing to make a point. In the US we have the right of self defense, it allows you to use force to stop someone from injuring you. Without getting into all the details, the force you use has to be the minimum necessary to stop the aggressor. FGE slapping (or even had he shoved her back) because she was trying to gouge out his eyes, would probably be okay. Had he hit her with a crowbar or shot her, not so much.
I’m not sure what logical leap your taking to consider robbing a liquor store because you’re the victim of corrupt officials in even remotely related to self defense, at least not in the legal sense.
That’s not what I got out of the thread. I got some people saying ‘sucks to be you, but I still think it’s a good rule’ and some people saying that HIS circumstances were extenuating. If a lot of people are suggesting that when violence is directed at a significant other there are, automatically, extenuating circumstances, I missed it in my quick read through.
While I generally agree that violent criminals should not be allowed to possess firearms, and am also generally in favor of *anything *that removes guns from people’s hands, I also vehemently disagree with any law that completely removes discretion from the equation. Flawed as human judgment may occasionally, or even frequently be, any rigidly black-and-white system of justice cannot possibly ever be any justice at all.
Such things as mandatory minimum sentencing laws and “zero tolerance” policies are not intelligent, empathetic, evolved, pragmatic solutions to social ills, they are an ill-advised attempt to make the necessarily messy and Byzantine business of criminal justice a simplified matter of following a flowchart, so that literally any idiot could administer it. This is not progress.
A poster above said “There are nuances, shades of gray, extenuating circumstances, etc…” That seems to me to be *explicitly *arguing that there should be no bright line where people lose the right to own guns, at least when it comes domestic violence convictions.
I think its crap that people who commit crimes lose their rights for life. Voting and firearms are the most common but the sex offender registry is also terrible. You shouldn’t become a second class citizen just because you were a criminal. I don’t really care if the guy murdered his wife, she robbed a liquor store, xe got caught peeing behind the bar.
I think what happened to the OP in that thread is sad and he shouldn’t be prevented from doing something with his kids because of something he did a decade and a half ago and hasn’t done since.
no, that’s entirely your own invention. You’re trying to say (essentially) that if someone says an object is not white, then they’re explicitly saying it’s black.
(I’ll spell it out for you- they’re not saying there should be “no bright line,” they’re saying that “maybe this is not quite where it should be placed.”) As in “yes, by the letter of the law he is not allowed to own guns, but the circumstances leading up to his loss of that right are at least some percent bullshit.”
has everyone in this entire goddamned country lost the ability to even consider the idea that not everything is either/or?
You keep taking my response to one post or poster and it to something else.
If someone pleads not guilty to a charge, and successfully mounts a self-defense defense, and is acquitted, then none of this applies. I’m only talking about people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.
It isn’t remotely related to a claim of self-defense. Again, you’re taking my reply to Flyer, who posted about people making mistakes and corrupt officials, and applying it to something you imagine I said about self-defense.
It’s coming across as disingenuous, at the very least.
Not everything is either/or. That said, I’m pretty convinced that people convicted of violent crimes should not be permitted to own firearms. I’m somewhat surprised that this is a controversial position.