Expunged Misdemeanor Domestic Violence???

[Lint Licker]

Well can we get a misdemeanor domestic violence charge expunged?????

[gregorylucas]

I knew someone who tried and the only thing he could hope for was clemency from the govenor. Otherwise there was no other mechanism by which he could regain his rights.

I had him talk to Trutanich & Michel and supposedly they were working on a lawsuit to get the lifetime prohibition struck down but not the state 10 year prohibition as I recall.

Greg

[ChuckBooty]

Expunged means nothing. Your DROS will still come back with the charge and if you try to join the military you'll still be disqualified. The only thing an expungement will do is prevent private companies from viewing the charge.

[M1A Rifleman]

I may be mistaken, but I seem to have read on this board that under Federal law, DV convictions = loss of gun rights for life with no appeal.

[bigcalidave]

All the domestic violence laws need a rework too, including the restraining order ones. I read a few really nasty stories of abuse in THAT system. That would be a great way to lose your rights without ever doing anything AT ALL.

[sholling]

I'm really confused by this. Thankfully it's not an issue for me, but it's still confusing. California used to do what they called a withdraw of plea. The case would be reopened in court without objection from the DA, the judge would then vacate the conviction and dismiss all charges. Do they do something different now? That's the same system that the feds used for years to restore rights to well connected federal felons.

[nicki]

The Cal 10 year prohibition could bring some sanity to the extreme Fed ban in lawsuits.

Nicki.

[Lint Licker]

(lifetime federal ban with no possibility of effective restoration of rights in CA other than governor's pardon)
Found this on another thread so does any body no anyone that has gone trough with it and one there rights back
PS Thanks guys for your insight

[Solidmch]

I may be mistaken, but I seem to have read on this board that under Federal law, DV convictions = loss of gun rights for life with no appeal.

This is true at the fed level. The SCOTUS just upheald the ruling this year. If you were charged by officers with DV and plead to any leser offence including disturbing the peace it is a lifetime ban. Thanks Diane Fienstien... it was her baby FFA 1967.

[MP301]

Its called the "Lautenberg" act or amendment or whatever.. I dont think Swinestien had anything to do with it directly...although im sure its still somehow her fault!

My understanding (correct me if im wrong), that expungement or vacating a conviction for misdemeanor DV would work to restore gun rights if not for the way Ca (and other states) handles these things.

Like a prvious poster said, even when you go through the trouble to expunge, there is still a record of it in the CA DOJ computer...so when you try to buy a gun or get checked out by an LE, it still shows up. If it shows up, that means it exists...and if it exists, that means your disqualified from owning/possesion/control of firearms/ammo....

Here an article from 1997... This one pisses me off to no end. I know a few people that are screwed for very minor issues..


The Latest Gun Control Fiasco
by James Bovard, May 1997

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0597d.asp

The nation's police forces are up in arms over a new federal gun control law that could strip thousands of them of their guns and jobs. Most police organizations have enthusiastically supported every gun control scheme President Clinton has put forward. Few Americans realized that such legislation almost always contained an exemption for the policemen themselves regarding their official duties. But poetic justice may finally have arrived. Unfortunately, its arrival also heralds the decimation of constitutional rights of a million or more other Americans.

Last September 28, as part of a massive appropriations bill, Congress passed the so-called Lautenberg Act, which greatly increases the number of Americans prohibited by federal law from owning firearms. For the first time, thanks to an amendment by Georgia's Rep. Bob Barr, law-enforcement officials are not exempt from the nation's gun control laws.

Cont. next post

[MP301]

cont.

The Lautenberg Act prohibits anyone from owning a gun or possessing any ammunition who has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor involving the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon against a spouse, child, or intimate partner. (People with any felony conviction have been prohibited from owning guns since 1968.) Any person with such a misdemeanor on his record who is found in possession of a gun or even of a single bullet can face a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison — longer than the average convicted murderer serves in this country.

Gerald Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, observed that the act "has thrown the whole world into confusion for cops." Victor Kappeler, director of the Criminal Justice Graduate Program at Eastern Kentucky University, estimated that if accurate reporting of all such police domestic violence occurred, and if all such assaults were fully prosecuted, 10% of the nation's law-enforcement officials (70,000 individuals) could be found guilty and thus banned from possessing a firearm under the new law.

The National Association of Police Organizations is calling for Congress to amend the law to exempt police. Beth Weaver, a NAPO spokesman, complained: "What we are concerned about is that law enforcement officers are the only group of workers in the country who stand to lose their jobs because of this new regulation." Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Republican, introduced a bill in the new Congress to exempt policemen from the new law.

The fact that such a bill would be openly proposed symbolizes how much contempt congressmen now have for the rule of law — the principle that the same law should apply to all. Perhaps some congressmen believe that possessing a government badge should be interpreted as having a federal license for wife beating. Perhaps the police need to be exempt from the law in order to have sufficient personnel to take away other people's guns.

Congress has cast a far wider antigun net than most Americans realize. A Fraternal Order of Police analysis noted: "Current trends in law and public policy seem intent on expanding the definition of 'domestic violence' to clearly nonviolent offenses." State laws on "domestic violence" are totally inconsistent; some states even define "trespassing" as an act of domestic violence. Early in the Clinton administration, Hillary Clinton was widely rumored to have thrown a lamp at her husband; if she did, she is guilty of domestic violence and thus could be forever prohibited from owning an Uzi. In some states, a husband who mimicked Jackie Gleason and shook his fist in the air towards his wife while huffing, "One of these days, Alice!" could be permanently stripped of his right to own firearms.

University of Maryland professor Lawrence Sherman noted: "When you touch people for the purpose of inflicting pain or fear of pain — many states will define that in their case law as an assault. Many of the arrests [from domestic violence] are based on such things as shoves" — rather than knock-down punches or chairs broken over people's heads.

The new law could also provide vigilante prosecutors with the power to seize the guns of parents who are not following Dr. Spock's child-rearing recommendations. According to Chris Klicka, director of the National Center for Home Education, "There is a move across the country by child rights groups to outlaw corporal punishment. In a few instances, families have been found guilty of abusing their children as a result of spanking — not that the children were hurt or anything."

Bogus charges of domestic violence are routinely used as tactics in divorce proceedings, and many people who plea-bargained 20 years ago on such a charge and paid a small court fine (instead of spending $5,000 in legal fees to defend themselves) will be surprised to discover that they have lost one of their constitutional rights. Dr. Peter Proctor, a forensic expert in Houston, observed: "Many domestic violence charges are false — perhaps as many as one-third where child custody or divorce issues are involved."

New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg described his bill on the Senate floor on August 2: "My amendment stands for the simple proposition that if you beat your wife . . . you should not have a gun." However, contrary to such rhetoric, women are not exempt from the new law and are increasingly likely to be stripped of the means of self-defense by its provisions. It was a common saying in the old West: "God made man, but Col. Colt made him equal." And firearms are the best chance that many women have to defend themselves against men who are far stronger physically. Sarah Thompson, a Utah doctor and gun-rights activist, observed: "Since both partners are often charged in domestic violence disputes, it effectively prevents battered women from obtaining the safest and most reliable form of self defense, a gun."

Many localities now require police to make arrests when answering domestic violence calls, and some Virginia counties have seen a tripling of domestic abuse charges against women in recent years. Jeanne MacLeod, director of the Maryland Network against Domestic Violence, told the Washington Post: "I think there are many cases when women are being victimized by the mandatory arrest policies. You tell the police they have to arrest someone, and sometimes they can't tell who did what to whom, and they'll arrest both people to safeguard themselves."

Disarming women can have deadly consequences. Polly Pryzbyl, a Cheektowaga, New York, woman, was murdered by her husband in August 1994 after police took away her guns. A few days earlier, she had separated from her husband and taken her children with her to her mother's house. He came to her mother's house and threatened her; she brandished a pistol to force him to back off. Police arrived and seized her gun. A week later, she and her mother went to her husband's house to pick up clothing for the children; he stepped out of the house and gunned them both down.

Many congressmen supported the law because some prosecutors routinely plea-bargain serious offenses down to misdemeanor charges. Thus, since some prosecutors accept foolish plea bargains that compromise public safety, the federal government is entitled to treat everyone who has committed certain misdemeanors as if they were dangerous felons. This is like assuming that everyone who was ticketed for jaywalking was actually in the process of crossing a street to blow up a government building.

Some jurisdictions have been criminally negligent in prosecuting and incarcerating people (almost entirely men) who repeatedly use severe physical force against their spouse. The solution is to jail the bad apples, not to presume that anyone with a citation on his record must be stripped of the means of self-defense. It makes no sense to reward lousy judgments or laziness by government prosecutors by further increasing their power over private citizens.

Congress held no hearings on this act before it was enacted, and most congressmen will probably be surprised at the police backlash against the law. Professor Sherman estimated that 100,000 to 150,000 Americans are convicted of domestic violence each year. Since this act is retroactive to the first term of George Washington, several million Americans may have lost the right to own firearms. Thanks to the Lautenberg Act, there are probably at least one million new felons in this nation — people with misdemeanor domestic conflict convictions who retain their firearms because they are unaware of their duty to disarm themselves.

This law will provide a golden opportunity for selective prosecution of gun owners. The Portland Press-Herald of Portland, Maine, reported in February: "U.S. Attorney Jay P. McCloskey said his office will not prosecute every offender. The aim instead will be to make a public example of a handful of violators as a deterrent to others." The new law contains an asset-forfeiture provision, which could be a further incentive for some police departments to go out and build up their own gun collections. For instance, police could check the records of people seen at gun shows and then, if a violation is found, go to their house and confiscate all their firearms.

This act symbolizes the creeping criminalization of gun ownership in America. It is the first time that a misdemeanor offense has been used to strip any American of a constitutional right. The antigun forces in Washington and Congress have made clear that they believe that Americans should be disarmed. Rep. Major Owens, a New York Democrat, responded to the growing recognition of the Bill of Rights' true meaning by proposing a bill in 1993 to repeal the Second Amendment. Sen. John Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, proposed a bill to require government confiscation of almost all of the more than 60 million privately owned handguns in the nation.

If the Lautenberg Act is allowed to stand as law of the land, it is certain that the antigun forces will come back with new lists of misdemeanors to justify stripping Americans of their firearms. The fact that congressmen are openly calling for exemptions for federal and state law enforcement from federal gun laws symbolizes the creation of a two-class society in America: the disarmers and the disarmed.

Jim Bovard is the author of Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin's Press, 1994) and Shakedown: How the Government Screws You From A to Z (Viking Press, 1995).

[GuyW]

A Fraternal Order of Police analysis noted: "Current trends in law and public policy seem intent on expanding the definition of 'domestic violence' to clearly nonviolent offenses." State laws on "domestic violence" are totally inconsistent; some states even define "trespassing" as an act of domestic violence.


Yelling at or cussing at your significant other is Domestic Violence in CA.

If you're in a volatile relationship, GTFO.

.

[MP301]

Yelling at or cussing at your significant other is Domestic Violence in CA.

If you're in a volatile relationship, GTFO.

.

Amen brother! They are asking to lose thier gun rights...... It is not worth it.

[radioman]

I have been with my wife for 30 years, long before this law. when the wife was on a b#$%h I would just go, get on my bike or jump in to my car and go, once for three days. I would call home and she would b@%^t on the third day she asked, when are you coming home? when are you going stop bit@#ing.. don't ever let it go that far, you hit her she wins!!!!!

[Lint Licker]

Thanks MP301 for finding that and posting it, Stupid laws that keep us from contributing to our broken economy This just pissis me off

[MP301]

NO problem...this is one of those things that really irks me.. very lopsided and over the top law....

Someone posted that this has stood up in court, but that particular case was pretty convuluted with other issues.

I dont think anyone has actually tackled this with SCOTUS yet with the perfect client....hope it happens..

[anthonyca]

NO problem...this is one of those things that really irks me.. very lopsided and over the top law....

Someone posted that this has stood up in court, but that particular case was pretty convuluted with other issues.

I dont think anyone has actually tackled this with SCOTUS yet with the perfect client....hope it happens..

Yes many have been by criminals with other drug and one for shooting his ex. I am too tired to post the cases. Some poor challenges by police when it was new.

Now with the Hayes case tens of thousands of people who slipped through the cracks of background checks or who haven't bought a gun but thought they were legal are now going to be in trouble.

The "similarly situated" BS that snake Lautenberg put in there has also been expanded by the courts due to criminals attempting to fight this. One drug dealer had his secretary he was banging qualify as a spouse.

I personally think that this is how gun control will move forward. Any "violent" mistomeaner (bar fight, argument, yelling at a coach of your kids team Ect.) is a 10 year Federal felonly if you EVER touch a gun or ammo again. Also the medical records for ever saying that you smoked Mary J or saw a shrink. Then just keep piling on these restrictions until atleast 50% of people are banned.

[2ndamendmentguru]

I've been fighting a domestic violence misdemeanor here in california for over a year and a half now. Ironically, I am the victim of domestic violence by my accuser, my spouse. Here's a brief summary of what happened. (Note: Im not going to get into all the particulars here, that would take too long. I'll just touch on a few important points so you'll be able to get a jist of what i've experienced.) I've been married for 9 years now, to a spouse whom has always been controlling, possesive, degrading, demeaning, destructive, physically and emotionally abusive, and so on...Anyhow, about 5 years ago my spouse threatened to kill me and our children. I layed awake in fear for the rest of that night. So many thoughts went through my head.. The following morning I woke up early, got my kids dressed, drove with the both of them to the police station. I filed a report that day. They never pursued a case because, as I later came to find out, my spouse told them i was the culprit... My spouse accused me of making the threat.. Within a few months my spouse hired a "top dog" divorce attorney and got sole custody of our kids. My spouse stood by the lies and, I was only given 2 seven hour visits every other weekend per month to visit with our kids. Six months later my spouse got a court order allowing my spouse to move with our children out of the state. (to Las Vegas, Nev.) After living there for about 3 months my spouse bought ammunition and a handgun, and during the 10 day waiting period threatened suicide....I was re-living the fear of the night my spouse threatened to kill our kids. Very soon, after hearing this we met up and rented a hotel room with our children. Over the course of the next week we negotiated a solution, my spouse decided to come clean and admit that I had never made death threats and in fact that my spouse was the person who had made the threats. My spouse was very remorseful and apologetic swearing to never abuse me again.. We would attempt a reconciliation. We drove back to California to inform the authorities... They were not interested in it at all, we interviewed with an officer who said that there was nothing that the police would or could do...I wasn't about to accept this and just work things out with my spouse. So, I had my spouse write an admission and got it certified for the record..... Advance to 1 1/2 years ago after living with what eventually became the same monster of a spouse i'd suffered living with for all our years prior.. We had an episode, the police were called in, I refused to talk and was hauled off to jail. Now the D.A. wants to strip me of our most important civil right our right to bear arms.....Without it our right to free speech is meaningless..The charge of misdemeanor??????? Is this America anymore?

[.454]

Is this America anymore?

No, this is the United Soviet States of Amerika.
Sorry to hear your story, pal. One of my friends went through a similar situation -young guy married for one year to a model-hot abusive, violent wife. He got hit with the same domestic violence charges: one night she comes home drunk from a night "out with the girls", starts hitting and scratching him to blood with her nails then she gets scared she's gonna be arrested and calls 911. Cops come and arrest him even if she eventually admits (after they cuff him) she made up the story and she was the one who was the attacker. Shortly after the incident they divorce, years later the guy remarries to another woman, they have kids, after another five years he pays a lawyer to have his record expunged. Last summer, 12 years after the incident he wants to buy an over/under shotgun and gets denied. I gave him TMLLP's phone number, he called them but there is not much they can do about his case.

[KylaGWolf]

Here is what gets me. I was abused by now ex husband (also abused our daughter) he threatened to kidnap our daughter (I have sole physical and legal custody) and I couldn't get a RO to save my life. Hell I couldn't get CA authorities to do jack. So I lived in fear. Yet there are cases like this that are abused. I wish that if they were going to enforce the law they would do it in cases where it was truly needed and not the BS ones.

[sholling]

Here is what gets me. I was abused by now ex husband (also abused our daughter) he threatened to kidnap our daughter (I have sole physical and legal custody) and I couldn't get a RO to save my life. Hell I couldn't get CA authorities to do jack. So I lived in fear. Yet there are cases like this that are abused. I wish that if they were going to enforce the law they would do it in cases where it was truly needed and not the BS ones.
I suspect the problem comes from the huge number of wives/girl friends that abuse the system. I used to live with a woman that any time I tried to end the relationship would threaten to have me arrested for domestic violence - I've never hit a woman in my life. That forced me to arrange for a time and place for the breakup where I could could prove that she was full of crap - and she still tried to have me arrested. As it was she just barely avoided arrest.

I've spoken with one officer that claims to have personally witnessed (through a window) a wife violently attacking her husband. He said that when he knocked she started screaming that he was attacking her. Women as abusers (PDF) (http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf)

It's these very-very common abuses of the system, often used as vengeance or to bolster a custody claim, that make it hard to accept every claim of domestic violence at face value. Put the blame where it belongs - on those that have abused heck out of the system.

[boxbro]

Yelling at or cussing at your significant other is Domestic Violence in CA.

If you're in a volatile relationship, GTFO.

.

Is this for real ?
If so, that's absolutely ridiculous.

[GuyW]

Here is what gets me. I was abused by now ex husband (also abused our daughter) he threatened to kidnap our daughter (I have sole physical and legal custody) and I couldn't get a RO to save my life. Hell I couldn't get CA authorities to do jack. So I lived in fear. Yet there are cases like this that are abused. I wish that if they were going to enforce the law they would do it in cases where it was truly needed and not the BS ones.

You have an important story to tell the public.

Youtube?
.

[GuyW]

Is this for real ?
If so, that's absolutely ridiculous.

I was told that by the horses, um, mouth, in CA Family Law Court. I did also look it up one time...
.

[zirconjohn]

What is so difficult to understand about DV?

When you fight a woman, argue with a woman, yell at a woman... wife, GF, Xwife, XGF, slam a door, break a window, smash a glass on the floor. Furthermore, if you pop a guy in the nose because he called your girl a name or whatever it's "violenece" - violence is viloence.

Get 'violence' conviction in a court of Law and you lose your RKBA!

You will lose!

If you have a wacko nut case GF always screamin' and fussin' and fightin'... get out now! They aint NO WOMAN worth my RKBA... NOT A ONE!

Like another poster said; when anything remotely close to DV happens GTFO!

Tough guys who stay and argue, fight, or break things - LOSE!

You need to put your dog-eat-dog big fat tail between your hind legs and scoot like a whimpering little girl... and you win; win, win, win, win, win!

Avoid any/all confrontation at all cost - It's just really that simple.

[glbtrottr]

Fresh out of high school and into college while in the Corps, I dated a runway model who was 4-5 years older than me. I thought things were great, but she feared I'd leave her for a younger woman, and in College I was lucky enough to have a few interested. Insecurities galore on her part, but I was too young to know better, in the Marine Corps, and not really thinking altogether.

We virtually lived together - the innocence of youth.... Part of this led to her having access to my ATM.

One fateful day, I discover she had cheated / considered cheating while telling me she was visiting her brother while instead she had gone to Chippendales and come home with one of the dancers. I decided to leave. It was not until a few days later I noticed a daily withdrawal of my max on my ATM...today, I would simply say: "you're a great girl, we had a great time, please don't call me again" ...back then, I was livid. I went to our place to recover the ATM and figure out regarding repayment...long story short, the cops are called. I am now out several hundreds of dollars, my ATM, my dignity, my place...the responding officer thought she was "beautiful", so after my leaving and being encouraged to "come back tomorrow", he thought he'd go above and beyond his call of duty to "call her" and ensure she "was safe", leading to a phone call several hours long.

When I came back (technically and comfortably the next day), she was still on the phone with the officer. She let him know I was back, which led to him driving over immediately to "put an end to things". She came out with a smile on her face as though everything was OK - I thought they were.

Downstairs, as I was leaving, the officer opted to confront me with a baton. A couple of strikes from him, while I repeated "I'm not resisting arrest" led to my defending myself, a broken collarbone (not mine) and a broken jaw, all from dropping a heel in the right place. I truly believed I'd be shot. I waited for other units to arrive, and got a personal visit of the local jail, and ultimately, county jail.

Interestingly enough, it was filed as "domestic violence" along with 11 other felonies - resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, attempted murder...

An adequate lawsuit, witness statements, the girlfriend reconsidering and willing to testify and more led to a plea of misdemeanor trespassing.

How easily could this have become a true Domestic Violence conviction? It would have happened in a New York minute.

What happens to all of those who can't afford to sue, don't know any better, cannot defend themselves, and get roped in by a rookie cop fresh out of the academy and with an excess of testosterone, or worse yet, an LEO who has been around the block a while and has a good level of competence in creative writing of an arrest report?

An expungement does *nothing* to remove the arrest from CLETS.

The arrest happened over 20 years ago. It didn't keep me from military service, being involved with Law Enforcement, or else.

Our laws are fundamentally screwed up, and the abuses that the fairer gender exercises in our court systems often times seem only exceeded by screwed up cops...far more common than any of us would like.

[boxbro]

I was told that by the horses, um, mouth, in CA Family Law Court. I did also look it up one time...
.

So if I am arguing with my GF and the police are called, they do interviews and find out no physical contact of any kind occurred, they can still arrest me for DV if I yelled at her ?

[anthonyca]

So if I am arguing with my GF and the police are called, they do interviews and find out no physical contact of any kind occurred, they can still arrest me for DV if I yelled at her ?

Depends on what you said. Or she said you said. Or the cops write in the report you said. Can any of that be taken as a threat? Read the BATFE memo. Any threats even if there is no way they could be carried out count for a lifetime ban. Get a Disorderly conduct charge while acting with "boisterousness or being unreasonably loud." and you are banned FOR LIFE. Page 2 left side.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/domestic/112807mcdv_brochure.pdf

Does anyone know the history of this? Lautenberg tried to sneak it into a few bills and found his chance to sneak it into this funding bill back when the govt shut down due to no budget and this was an "emergency must pass bill". That shut down did not affect me how about you?

So come midnight or around there he inserts a few lines in here with most of the traitors to the constitution that voted for it not even knowing he slid that in there.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/content-detail.html

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

By letting this stand we open the next class of prohibited persons. Does anyone think they wont try to federally ban people for a "gun crime"? (Open carry, school zone transport ect) How about bar fight in college? People think this does not affect them but I believe it is a very dangerous precedent.

One more thing. I have no kids but I have seen most parents commit a DV child abuse while scolding their kids. Any use force or violence or threatened use of the same is DV whether you think it is or not. "Get you $%@ in the shower and don't make me late or I will kick your smart little @#$ all the way over to the bathroom"!!!!!!!!! I have heard parents say things like that not even serious but the kids sure thought they were. Now say that during a divorce or with a bad neighbor in ear shot and look at what could happen.

[1919_4_ME]

This guy specializes in cleaning peoples records up fast and cheap give him a shout if your in doubt.;)

www.criminalhistorycleaners.com

[zirconjohn]

So if I am arguing with my GF and the police are called, they do interviews and find out no physical contact of any kind occurred, they can still arrest me for DV if I yelled at her ?

If she says; 'he said he was going to kick my ***!' or if she tries to leave the house, and you stand in front of her and refuse to let her leave, if you punch a hole in the wall, threaten her in any way...

Or let's say you don't threaten her, or stand in front of her as she tries to leave... but the cops coax her to indicate that such a thing may have occurred... see where this is going? Cops have a way of coaxing... I have a lot of LEO friends, great bunch of guys... but ultimately they have a job to do. They investigate... and through investigation, they COAX!

Once you are arrested, she CANNOT drop charges [period]!

The case is forever now in the hands of the District Attorney, and nether you, nor your GF, wife, X, +, *, %^#$!@... whatever, nobody can do anything about it because YOU did not just simply SHUT your BIG FAT MOUTT and just simply walk the hale away in the first place and maintain your God given RKBA.

Look, fellas... young and medium, to old like me... heed my advise.

Don't play tough guy, you will lose.

Play nice, be good, shut up, and walk... just keep your rubber lipped moutt shut and zip it, and stifle thy self, and think or do what you gotta think or do and walk away.

That's all, it's that simple.

[ssilverado60]

All the domestic violence laws need a rework too, including the restraining order ones. I read a few really nasty stories of abuse in THAT system. That would be a great way to lose your rights without ever doing anything AT ALL.

yeah i have first hand experience with the restraining order one. In this state a female can basically come up with the biggest load of BS imaginable and they can still get a restraining order granted. In my case it was literally laughable at the allegations in there. I am about as clean cut as they come and somehow the judge in Orange County believed that I was going to put out a "hit" on this girl and then take my daughter and hide her in Costa Rica. Ive never even been to costa rica!!

So yes, it is incredibly easy to abuse the system when it comes to domestic violence and restraining orders. I felt so sorry for all the bruised up and physically injured women that were in there, especially when there is someone in there like in my case just completely abusing the system and wasting time and money (especially mine). Not to mention it took me 2 years to finally get this legal book of lies erased, and my RKBA back. And i even lost any and all custody of my daughter for about 6 months, I didnt even get to see her!


so in conclusion, get away from any potentially crazy girlfriend you encounter. Nobody is worth the hassle that will ultimately arise.

[ssilverado60]

Is this for real ?
If so, that's absolutely ridiculous.

yes, and yes . . .

a verbal argument can get you in some serious trouble any more

[journeyman]

only method of restoring firearms rights after DV in California is a Pardon from the Governor. i got this straight from Joe Silvoso at TMLLP on Monday.

[GuyW]

"Domestic violence can take the form of physical violence, including direct physical violence ranging from unwanted physical contact to rape and murder. Indirect physical violence may include destruction of objects, striking or throwing objects near the victim, or harm to pets. In addition to physical violence, spousal abuse often includes mental or emotional abuse, including verbal threats of physical violence to the victim, the self, or others including children, ranging from explicit, detailed and impending to implicit and vague as to both content and time frame, and verbal violence, including threats, insults, put-downs, and attacks. Nonverbal threats may include gestures, facial expressions, and body postures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

[MP301]

Here is how its supposed to work - from the horse's mouth...

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/domestic/qa.htm

Firearms Info

Domestic Violence
MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

As of April 28, 1997

1. What is a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

As defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" means an offense that:
(1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law;
(2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
(3) was 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 cohabiting 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.

However, a person is not considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless:
(1) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(2) in the case of a prosecution for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either--
(a) the case was tried by a jury, or
(b) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.

In addition, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held provides for the loss of civil rights upon conviction for such an offense) unless the pardon, expunction, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, and the person is not otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing firearms.

2. What is the effective date of this disability?

The law was effective September 30, 1996. However, the prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the new law's effective date.

3. Does the new disability apply to law enforcement officers?

Yes. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was amended so that employees of Government agencies convicted of qualifying misdemeanors would not be exempt from this new disability with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Thus, law enforcement officers and other Government officials who have been convicted of a disqualifying misdemeanor may not lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including performance of their official duties. This disability applies to firearms and ammunition issued by Government agencies, firearms and ammunition purchased by Government employees for use in performing their official duties, and personal firearms and ammunition possessed by such employees.

4. Is this provision of the law being applied retroactively in violation of constitutional rights?

No. This provision is not being applied retroactively or in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. This is because the law does not impose additional punishment upon persons convicted prior to the effective date, but merely regulates the future possession of firearms on or after the effective date. The provision is not retroactive merely because the person's conviction occurred prior to the effective date.

5. What is the penalty for violating this offense?

Any individual who knowingly violates this provision of the law is subject to a fine of $250,000, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.

6. Does the law impose any additional duties on dealers in firearms and ammunition?

Yes. Until the Form 4473 and Brady forms have been revised to include the new offense, licensees should inquire of their customers whether they have been convicted of a disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanor and avoid transferring any firearms or ammunition to such persons. ATF is in the process of revising the forms and will provide them to licensees as soon as possible.

7. What should a licensee do if he has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

Federal firearms licensees should verify that they are disabled under the new prohibition. A licensee convicted of a disqualifying misdemeanor may not lawfully possess firearms or ammunition. In addition, a licensee who incurs firearms disabilities during the term of a license may not continue operations under the license for more than 30 days after incurring the disability unless the licensee applies for relief from Federal firearms disabilities.

8. What should a person do if he has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

Individuals subject to this disability should immediately lawfully dispose of their firearms and ammunition. ATF recommends that such persons transfer their firearms and ammunition to a third party, such as their attorney, to their local police agency, or a federal firearms dealer. The continued possession of firearms or ammunition by persons under this disability is a violation of law and may subject the possessor to criminal penalties. In addition, such firearms and ammunition are subject to seizure and forfeiture.

9. X was convicted of misdemeanor assault on October 10, 1996. The crime of assault does not make specific mention of domestic violence, but the criminal complaint reflects that X assaulted his wife. May X still possess firearms or ammunition?

No. X may no longer possess firearms or ammunition.

10. X was convicted of the same crime on September 20, 1996, 10 days before the effective date of the new statute. He possesses a firearm on October 10, 1996. May X lawfully possess firearms?

No. If a person was convicted of a crime at any time, he or she may not lawfully possess firearms or ammunition on or after September 30, 1996.

11. What State and local offenses are "misdemeanors" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. • 922(d)(9) and (g)(9)?

“Misdemeanor” as used in 18 U.S.C. sections 922(d)(9) and (g)(9) includes any offense that is classified as a misdemeanor under federal or state law. In addition, the definition includes any state or local offense punishable only by a fine or by imprisonment for a term of one year or less.

12. In determining whether a conviction in a State court is a "conviction" of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, does federal or state law apply?

State law applies. If a conviction for a qualifying misdemeanor does not occur under State law, the person has not been "convicted" of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The law states that a person must be convicted of a State misdemeanor to be under firearms disabilities. Therefore, if the State does not consider the person to be convicted, the person would not have Federal firearms disabilities.

13. Is a person who received "probation before judgment" or some other type of deferred adjudication subject to this disability?

What is a conviction is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. If the State law where the proceedings were held does not consider probation before judgement or deferred adjudication to be a conviction, the person would not be subject to Federal firearms disabilities.

14. Are local criminal ordinances "misdemeanors under State law" for purposes of sections 922(d)(9) and (g)(9)?

Yes, assuming a violation of the ordinance meets the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" in all other respects.

15.X was convicted of misdemeanor assault on October 10, 1996. The crime of assault does not make specific mention of domestic violence but the criminal complaint reflects that he assaulted his wife. May X still possess firearms or ammunition?

No. X may no longer possess firearms or ammunition.

16. X was convicted of the same crime on September 20, 1996, 10 days before the effective date of the new statute. He possesses a firearm on October 10, 1996. May X lawfully possess firearms?

No. If a person was convicted of the crime at any time, he or she may not lawfully possess firearms or ammunition on or after September 30, 1996.

17. Officer C was charged with felony assault on her child in 1989. She pled guilty to a misdemeanor and the felony charge was dismissed. She was suspended from the police force and ordered to undergo counseling. After successful completion of the counseling, she was reinstated. May Officer C lawfully possess firearms or ammunition?

No. Officer C may no longer lawfully possess firearms or ammunition either on or off duty.

18. Are Convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence entered by an Indian tribal court disqualifying under 18 U.S.C. 922 (d) (9) and (g) (9)?

Convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence entered by "tribal courts" are not disqualifying under 18 U.S.C. 922 (d) and (g) (9) since the statute expressly refers to federal and state court convictions, but does not reference tribal court convictions. However, Courts of Indian Offenses operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under 25 C.F.R. Part 11 are federal instrumentalities. Therefore, convictions for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922 (d) and (g) (9).

Note: For one who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, the prohibition on the possession of firearms and ammunition DOES not apply if the-individual has received a pardon for the crime, the conviction has been expunged or set-aside, or the person has had civil rights restored (if there was a loss of civil rights) AND the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition

[radioman]

run don't walk if you think you might hit her go as far away as you can get!!!!!!

[anthonyca]

run don't walk if you think you might hit her go as far away as you can get!!!!!!

That is part of the problem. Most people think you have to hit her to get arrested.

I am all for people who hit their wifes or childern being arrested. However many people who are arrested never hit anyone and are shocked when they are arrested for moving someone from the doorway or throwing the remote and leaving the house or in a select few casing just being yelled at and they are the ones taken because that is who the police chose to take.