The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on January 21, 2009, 01:01:00 PM
-
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/01/21/news/wyoming/17c614b7c081aa198725754400021c61.txt
CHEYENNE -- A bill that would require Wyoming judges to warn defendants that they would lose their federal gun rights by pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges received preliminary approval in the state Senate on Monday.
The Senate unanimously approved Senate File 70, sponsored by Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander. The bill would also classify misdemeanor domestic violence as a serious offense requiring defendants to have lawyers.
Speaking in favor of the bill at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Monday, Case said, "We still have a situation in the United States of America where you can lose a constitutional right, the Second Amendment, for a misdemeanor crime."
Congress in 1996 expanded the law that bans convicted felons from owning guns to apply to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
-
Maybe we should make it a felony to hit your wife or husband...
Just thinking outloud.
-
Or maybe just a felony to "assault" anyone.
-
Maybe we should make it a felony to hit your wife or husband...
Just thinking outloud.
I'm ok with that.
-
Maybe we should make it a felony to hit your wife or husband...
Just thinking outloud.
It sounds OK, until someone is convicted of a felony for spanking their kid.
-
It sounds OK, until someone is convicted of a felony for spanking their kid.
let's not get too carried away.
-
I don't know. Some folks just need a beatin'. ;D
I have worked in several bars in a college town and have notice an increase in young folk who don't know proper social exchange. They are the product of a family (or lack thereof) that failed to instill both common sense and courtesy. Mom and Dad may have spared the rod, but life will oblige them eventually.
Domestic violence, on on the other hand, is a sticky wicket. I have personally seen a friend get a ride and a couple of bracelets for the privilege of having his much smaller but rather feisty girlfriend beat him with various objects. Neighbors hear her screaming and call the fuzz (takin' it back to the '70s) and all of a sudden I'm collecting bail $$$. Some things aren't so cut and dried.
Rant off. I return your thread to its previous state.
-
Seems like a good idea, but I agree with Broso, I've seen the same sort of thing, guy hauled away when he SHOULD have leveled the psycho bitch, but didn't. I've known people who got arrested for slapping their kid on the butt when the kid NEEDE to have her butt slapped.
-
let's not get too carried away.
I'm in California. If there is any place where the politicos, judges and hippy whiners are going to get carried away, it'll be here.
-
broso's right we don't need another easily misconstrued law just because we have a lot of idiots roaming the streets.
-
A simple adage a history professor (a staunch libertarian) was fond of saying: "Every law made destroys a freedom". That has always stuck in the back of my mind. Scare yourself and check to see how many times your state's books have made murder illegal. I always thought once was enough.
-
A simple adage a history professor (a staunch libertarian) was fond of saying: "Every law made destroys a freedom". That has always stuck in the back of my mind. Scare yourself and check to see how many times your state's books have made murder illegal. I always thought once was enough.
once should be enough but these morons think there is more than one type of murder, and that those committing murder will listen to a new law (whether they listened to the old law or not), or they think the force of their new statements will scare those people into finally listening to them. Besides a legislature that does nothing is thought to do just that, whether its worth while to not make any changes or not, but one that makes new laws is considered to be productive, whether those new laws are idiotic or not.
-
once should be enough but these morons think there is more than one type of murder, and that those committing murder will listen to a new law (whether they listened to the old law or not), or they think the force of their new statements will scare those people into finally listening to them. Besides a legislature that does nothing is thought to do just that, whether its worth while to not make any changes or not, but one that makes new laws is considered to be productive, whether those new laws are idiotic or not.
Legislatures should be subject to the same quality control guide lines as industry. And it should be overseen by an Industrial quality control out fit similar to UL (smaller companies do the same type of testing for specialized applications, for example my company has our sterilization checked by an outside vendor ) politicians who pass foolish, or pork barrel legislation, should be removed and banned from holding office, just like if I continuously made junk parts, or crashed the machine I would be fired.
-
Legislatures should be subject to the same quality control guide lines as industry. And it should be overseen by an Industrial quality control out fit similar to UL (smaller companies do the same type of testing for specialized applications, for example my company has our sterilization checked by an outside vendor ) politicians who pass foolish, or pork barrel legislation, should be removed and banned from holding office, just like if I continuously made junk parts, or crashed the machine I would be fired.
That is what the constituents are supposed to do, so technically they do have a review. But unfortunately most of the people I have talked to they just assume the person in office is doing a good, regardless of what was done. That's why an educated society was so important to the founders. And don't forget the uninitiated think pork is good for their state, now to be fair some pork I don't have a problem with; like necessary bridges and large programs, like multi-state farm bills or the like, its the measures that were not voted on because they weren't in the bill when passed just slipped in afterwards (I forgot what that's called, brain fart) that I have a huge problem with.
-
The difference between what I suggested and an election is that an election is a popularity contest based on bribery and BS, while what I'm suggesting would be strictly based on QUALITY of job performance. Lying in the campaign would be a minus, upgrading your states bridges would be a plus, getting funds to study the mating habits of slugs would be a minus in Alaska, but might be a plus in a farm state.
-
I don't believe that one should go around beating their spouses, etc: however what constitutes domestic violence is not always as clear cut as it should be. I think Wyoming is moving in the right direction. I have known several men who have been convicted of domestic violence who pleaded guilty just to expedite the process without realizing the consequences of a conviction. Both of the cases involved wives who went ballistic with temper tantrums and started beating on their husbands and when the men resisted the attacks by grabbing their wrist or shoulders the men were arrested and charged.
Another friend's exwife was psyscho and they were involved in a very loud verbal fight. He had been working on the electrical system of their house and she got upset that the power was off. My friend, rather than make a scene and continue the argument, left. A neighbor called the police and before they came to the scene the wife had cut up the wiring at the service panel and blamed it on the husband. The police went after him because of what she did. He finally got it straightened out without getting charged, but it took some time for the prosecuter to review it. He actually had a couple of officers from another juristiction where he used to live stand up for him. Those cops had a long history with and were very familiar with the antics of his psycho wife.
Too many times it seems there is a presumption that the man is the one responsible for violence in a domestic situation when it is not always the case. The two guys that pleaded guilty had never been in trouble and were basically told it was a misdemeanor and they would get a small fine a be done with it. They did not know and were not told that a misdemeanor conviction of domestic assualt would cost them their firearms rights.
In the area where I live, the law enforcement practice is that if the police are called to the scene, someone is going to jail. It maybe nothing more than a loud argument that a neighbor calls and complaines about the noise. Is that domestic violence?
-
In the area where I live, the law enforcement practice is that if the police are called to the scene, someone is going to jail. It maybe nothing more than a loud argument that a neighbor calls and complaines about the noise. Is that domestic violence?
That I think is the problem with making policies of everything, you take away the ability of the person in charge from making an informed decision. If the policy is someone goes to jail, all you do is send someone to jail, the only choice is who, therefore they send what is considered the norm, regardless of whether it is right. If they had the decision a better resolution maybe had. I gotta tell ya if I get in trouble with that kind of thing I will try and call the Sheriff rather than the police, since the sheriff's dept. has more opportunity to make their own decisions when compared to police. Most police dept.'s don't make decisions like the Jesse Stone movies.
-
Facilities are a problem as well, most towns don't have facilities for women so they lock up the guy either way.
-
Domestic violence laws are a gift of the women's movement of the 60s. Their credo: women are victims, men are their victimiizers.
-
Just a quick reminder, "necessities like bridges"... multi state farm bills and the like are perversions of the federal system. States, on the other hand, do have authority. There has been a lot of "infrastructure" talk recently. There has been only one bridge collapse and that would fall clearly on the state that used funds in other areas. (Can you see the Libertarian streak? Just wondering.)
-
Just a quick reminder, "necessities like bridges"... multi state farm bills and the like are perversions of the federal system. States, on the other hand, do have authority. There has been a lot of "infrastructure" talk recently. There has been only one bridge collapse and that would fall clearly on the state that used funds in other areas. (Can you see the Libertarian streak? Just wondering.)
I probably should have stated bridges for the Interstate system and US highway system, I thought of of it after I posted and didn't realize I could modify it until later when I didn't feel like it. You'll also notice I said I don't mind, I never said I was a fan, nor if it were up to me would I approve of them. I personally think people should be allowed to fail, Hell I've been allowed for a long time.
-
Just a quick reminder, "necessities like bridges"... multi state farm bills and the like are perversions of the federal system. States, on the other hand, do have authority. There has been a lot of "infrastructure" talk recently. There has been only one bridge collapse and that would fall clearly on the state that used funds in other areas. (Can you see the Libertarian streak? Just wondering.)
The Minn bridge collapse that you are referring to was determined to be because of a design failure....
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/26/minneapolis-bridge-collapse-design-failure/
IMO, making infrastructure a center piece of the stimulus is a big waste of time. Yes, it does give you something tangible in the end that you spent the money on, but it is still just busy work -- and it will only put a select few back to work. ***INSERT BRIDGE TO NOWHERE JOKE HERE*** Our infrastructure is not in anyway holding back our economy. In fact, it is one of the best in the world, and is probably further ahead then we actually even need it to be.
The entire stimulus is 100% bogus anyway, and proof positive that Obama cares about nothing but furthering his political ideology. It will do next to nothing to stimulate our economy, but is rather just a big old fat excuse for the Govt to spend even more money (reference all the pork that we are finding out is in it).
Glenn Beck reported that only 3% of the stimulus money will be spent within the first 12 months and around 15% will be spent within the first two years. He also said on his show today, that for the same price you could give each American with a mortgage $16,000 OR you could supply every American with free gas for 5 years.