Anyone like to get in on the converstion?

sarge_3ad

There's a article in our state rag today where our states Attorney General wants a state law on top of a federal law pertaining to the disarmament of those involved in domestice violence. Please join in.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090115/NEWS10/901150364

And let the fun begin. Thank you. CA#11.

tr fox

Domestic violence exists in an extremely wide range of seriousness. It ranges from merely standing in front of the house telephone preventing your spouse from call his/her mother to actually hitting and/or slamming your spouse to the floor to keep them from using the phone. Often times, especially in the case of the very mild, even harmless, case of "domestic violence" (as defined by the government) after it is all over, even the "innocent" party doesn't want any legal action against the "offender".

So, with that in mind, the minor cases of domestic violence should remain a misdemeanor and should not result in any restrictions of gun rights, or any other rights. Now the more serious cases should be classified a felony and then we have a different argument to make.

wsfiredude

The problem with this is who gets to define what is 'minor' and what is 'serious'. Common sense would tell most folks which is which, but you have to remember that common sense is not an attribute that flourishes in politicians.


I view this as yet another gun-grab scheme. Coming out and mandating a 'turn-in' wouldn't fly, so we'll just charge/convict everyone we can with a felony. It's underhanded, and it's a schit-* way of doing things, but 'they' will stop at nothing to accomplish their ultimate goal.

buffalobo

speaking of minor .vs serious, we had case here in norhteast colo that a guy was tried for disruption of phone service after the da could not convict him of domestic abuse for standing in front of the phone and not letting his wife call the police after he had already done so, and they were in route to the residence