Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/20/2005 11:23:02 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: kiriath_jearim

"This is a good law that recognized that a majority of Maine homicides are caused by domestic violence and involve guns," said Cathie Wittenberg, of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence. "People need to know that if you make a decision to beat your wife, you are also making a decision not to own guns."



Then this gun-grabbing harridan should have no objection to plea instructions informing the accused that a guilty plea means that they will never legally own a gun again, and if they are found with a gun, they will go to jail.


2 posted on 06/20/2005 11:31:55 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

What a lot of men do not realize, is that if a woman obtains a civil order for protection from domestic violence (which are NEVER heard before juries and usually most guys just agree to the entry of the order rather than fight it in court), under federal law, the man loses his constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as far as the federal and state law goes. If you get caught with a gun (hunting rifle, pistol, whatever) and there is an Order for Protection from DV with your name on it, you will be arrested and charged with a crime and your gun(s) confiscated. Argue that it is "unconstitutional" all you want, the cop isn't gonna listen to you. And, the court will not be sympathetic. Prosecutors go after DV cases with a vengeance, and the courts back them up almost every time.


3 posted on 06/20/2005 11:31:57 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

I'm still waiting for our "conservative" congress to repeal a law, any law, to show they believe in "small" government. This idiotic law would be a good start. I'll watch the pyramids crumble while waiting.


6 posted on 06/20/2005 12:00:13 PM PDT by sergeantdave (Marxism has not only failed to promote human freedom, it has failed to produce food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim

Unless something about federal law regarding the VAWA has changed, if a man with a restraining order against him (routine for such orders to be permanent in some jurisdictions to make sure that sole custody of children stays with women) is caught possessing firearms or ammunition, he gets a mandatory federal prison sentence.

Everyone should lose their Second Amendment freedoms until the VAWA is repealed. Everyone should also be subject to debtors' prisons until the so-called (and revenue guzzling) Child Support Act is repealed. Violation of our Constitution is a real crime, IMO.


10 posted on 06/20/2005 12:38:18 PM PDT by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: kiriath_jearim
DeGrinney argued that Frechette's original conviction should not count because at the time he waived his right to a jury trial, he was not fully advised of the consequences of his actions.

How can the fact that he wasn't sufficiently informed of consequences that weren't even passed into law yet have legal relevance?? Remember, the federal law was passed AFTER he plead. OTOH, the ex post facto aspect of this and similar laws is already a problem in its own right, anyway.

12 posted on 06/20/2005 2:55:57 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson