Just to clarify, it is CONVICTED of domestic, not arrested, is that not correct?

Certainly, wrongful convictions happen. And agreed that gun laws normally don't work.

I will admit I have a very, very, very, very deep seated disgust and loathing toward men who beat on their wives/partners or mistreat them in any way (and no, my father was not abusive; he was and is actually a model husband and father), and it is entirely possible my bias is showing.

-Mark

Ditto. When my wife's friends have problem like this, they come to our house, knowing how I feel.

But, that loathing is almost matched by my loathing for the women willing to ruin someone's life by lying about abuse. I hate liars, too.

+10

I know a couple of people who don't take their kids hunting because of this stuff. It's kind of silly when a child can use a rifle or shotgun but his dad has to use a muzzleloader.....

It's incorrect to say this, but in most spousal abuse cases the parties have equal "problems"; most abusers are not sadistic people, and most battered spouses are not Snow White. But police are required to arrest somebody when there is evidence of hitting, even when recanted the next day. People usually plead to probation and counseling and then lose their gun rights, because of the federal law they may not even be aware of at the time. The victim's advocates tell us there is physical abuse (assault) in 1 out of 3 marriages or relationships. Of course, most abuse is not charged, (so it's even More unfair).

ANY USE OF A GUN is most likely a FELONY, not a misdemeanor. It is just ludircrous for one to lose gun rights for a misdemeanor spousal. The first victims of this law were police officers. Wife calls for abuse, he has to be charged misdemeanor and then of course with no gun rights, loss of the family income. Real helpful for the wife, that'll teach her not to complain or go for help for herself and the children.

This federal law is one of those things that get passed because all good legislators need to oppose spousal abuse, it's a photo op law.

If there was a "strict scrutiny" test for gun rights, this stuff would arguably be unconstitutional as a too broad restriction on gun rights. Maybe they'll find that.

Now that is funny!!!

ROTFL!!!!

Seems a bit like a Brady statistic. How are they defining physical abuse? Me hugging my wife too hard?

I still cannot sympathize with abusers of either gender. I can't in my worst dreams imagine striking my spouse, and it disturbs me that some people not only think about it, but do it. If somebody can manage to hit someone they should love and protect, how can I reasonably expect them to not snap and attack me, a total stranger?

I'm not saying it's fair, and to be sure I have major issues with wrongful conviction. That said, the whole thing raises some serious moral and, frankly, religious issues for me. I took a vow before the state and my God to love, honor, and protect my wife. I will abide by it.

I truly do understand where some of you are coming on this one, I really do. Liars and wrongful convictions are a travesty. I just can't personally make that leap yet.

-Mark

So... if I am convicted of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater multiple times can they take away my "right" to free speech?

Yep. They can restrict pretty much anything they want in prison.

Of course, it's not a lifetime ban.

Let me be perfectly clear when I say that I am by no means defending spousal abuse. It is horrible when it actually happens. However, if I found myself on the jury for a case like this, if there was any modicum of doubt in my mind of that individual's guilt, I would not vote to convict. This is where some of you will probably disagree, but I would rather let a guilty man go free than ruin the life of an innocent person. Besides, if he was guilty, statistics say that he'll do it again, and will stand trial for it again.

I've noticed that petitions for Orders For Protection which often were granted without objection from the "alleged abuser" are now tried in court, because of the lifetime federal prohbition on possession of ANY firearm that may be attached to the order if the judge's findings include domestic violence.

Sure. It's supposed to be a civil matter between the parties. Ideally it should be fairly private, and we should encourage quick settlements and counseling. The parties often reconcile and change theier behavior. But positive solutions are held up by the gun thing, which is a burden on the family. The gun ban discourages the purported abuser from settling the case. The feds should stay out of these state court matters.

Why should a reputedly abused spouse, who has never been threatened with a gun, have this law interfere with the solution to her problem? This is not a rational situation.

If it wasn't about "guns", the women's advocates would object to this.

This is a statutory interpretation case.

There was no Second Amendment claim in the lower courts. Under the appellate rules, the S. Ct. shouldn't mention it at all.

I agree with Dick, and will state this.

I was helping a friend move out of his home after he and his wife decided to get a divorce. It was all very calm and polite, no abuse, no violence, just two people who got married because they had to 20 years before, and after raising a couple of kids, decided that it was not where either of them wanted to be.

As we were carrying stuff out to the car, he was served with TRO, compliments of her attorney, who did that to EVERY husband she served divorce papers to. It took a lot of arguing by the couple to over turn that and have it expunged.

The ex wife to be was in court with him as was I, stating he had never laid an unwanted hand on her, nor had he ever threatened her in any way. Her statement in Court was quite moving as she said he loved the outdoors more than her, and she loved him still enough to never want to take that away from him. Finally the Judge had the woman atty on the stand who stated she had TRO's served as a matter of course in EVERY divorce she handled, and she really did not care if it messed up guys lives. Her words, "so he cant hunt or fish anymore, big deal, its not like its the end of the world" Luckily, the Judge disagreed, and said to some it was a big deal, and ruled in my friends favor. He had it expunged, and made sure that it was duly noted that it was issued in error, and that it should not ever interfere with his rights.

Too bad there probably isn't a way for that attorney to face a bar association inquiry. Total lack of ethics.

-Mark