"Losing Your Firearm Rights in a Divorce Case" Topic

Can you lose your gun rights in a divorce case? It is certainly possible.

Persons subject to domestic relations civil injunctions or orders may lose their firearm rights even where the order says nothing about firearms. Whether the loss is permanent or only temporary depends on the language contained in the divorce or other domestic relations order.

link

Anyone who beats up his wife, girlfriend, or kids should lose his guns.

In a divorce case, the guns, just like the car, the dog, and the 60" TV are community property.

If folks have greater appreciation for the consequences we might have less domestic abuse which is a positive result.

I agree that domestic violence should be taken seriously.

I think people who file false charges of domestic or sexual violence should also be taken very seriously, and get more jail time than is usually the case.

The problem isn't that people convicted of domestic abuse will probably lose their gun (and plenty of other) rights, it's that people accused of these crimes might lose them.

It is a constitutional right, and people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Once the cops seize your stuff (any sort of stuff) getting it back is time-consuming, costly, and often proves impossible. That is just wrong, when it turns out you were innocent all along and they should never have taken your stuff in the first place. It's especially bad when they sell your stuff for money or "destroy" it, and it winds up in some cop's collection.

-Kle.

If you do a quick google search for divorce advice for women, you will find that many message boards and advise sites are very blatant in encouraging women to falsely accuse dear hubby of domestic abuse (which can be just verbal or anything that makes them "feel afraid") so that the husband is removed from the house. The lawyers are able to use the allegations to get more cash and prizes from the unfortunate simp/victim.

Anybody heard anything about Chris Rock's impending divorce?
It's all about the cash and prizes folks, the Family Court system gets federal kickbacks whenever they transfer wealth from one person to the other, whether they can pay it or not.

MGTOW!Don't date, don't cohabitate, and never marry!

I agree with Klebert. Denying Constitutional rights as punishment after a conviction in criminal court is one thing; denying rights in civil proceedings where the standards of proof are looser and due process is problematic is another.

If you can take it away for whatever reason, it is not a right. It is a privilege.

..the right to arm bears shall not be infringed.

Driving is a privilege that can be legally revoked.

You can also have your rights to own or possess firearms revoked or limited as a result of a criminal conviction.

Tangentially related:

link

-Kle.

Let's keep this in perspective.

If you are arrested and a suspect in, say a felony, the first thing you will lose is your freedom. If you are unable to post bail or if the evidence is compelling, you can be held without bail. If you can't hire a half-way decent lawyer, you could languish in a cell for months, even years waiting for a court date.

If it were me, having my guns confiscated is going to be the least of my worries.

Considering the number of wives and ex-wives murdered by their husbands or ex-husbands, removing their guns seems like a no brainer if there is the slightest fear that they might be violent.

Dan

Sure, getting rid of guns is the answer in a divorce.

No husband or ex would ever think of murder without having a gun around…

Then there is the woman in New Jersey stabbed to death in her driveway by her ex-boyfriend. She had applied for a NJ permit to enable her to own a gun but it was still in process (takes at least 6 months). Had she been bale to own a gun she might have shot the poor fellow leading to another case of gun violence. As it is he is still alive, well, and at large…

Anecdotal , Gorograd. Care to cite a source? Preferably one from an actual news source, not some blog.

I'm not saying it's bull, but without more than "Then there is the woman…" It certainly has little credibility.

As for the rights issue, a number of "rights" can be amended by a Court in order to insure public safety, the life and liberty of others, and on the basis of previous violent or destructive behavior. These include confinement, use of tracking anklets, restriction of contact with potential victims, and, yes, the possession of any weapon, including firearms.

ALL rights may be restricted or amended by legal recourse in order to meet the demands of public and personal safety. Please note that required gun locks, background checks, sanity restrictions, and court orders related to certain weaponry, it's perceived use, and sales, have all been allowed by the courts. In very few states, and even fewer cities, are firearms free of a variety of legal restrictions.

There should be more sensible regulation of what is demonstrated to be a pandemic of violent firearm use.
The most common form of firearm violence, other than suicide, is between family members or people who know each other, and women and children are often the victims.

Fo Data See: PDF link

As you wish RePiqued One -

link

When Carol Bowne felt the threat of domestic violence, the petite hairdresser took steps to protect herself.

The Berlin Township woman got a restraining order against a former boyfriend, installed security cameras and an alarm system to her home and began the months-long process of obtaining a handgun, friends said.

But it wasn't enough.

Bowne, 39, was stabbed to death in the driveway of her Patton Avenue home on Wednesday night.

Follow up, apparently the security cams did some good, there was a tape of her being stabbed -

link

On another positive note, the ex-boyfriend apparently became suicidal following the murder. Fortunately he had no gun so he hanged himself at another ex-girlfriend's house.

Then there is the NJ man denied a permit to buy some new guns to replace his older shotguns and target rifles over a domestic violence call to the home in 2011 and drug and alcohol convictions. The man stated that his wife has since had treatment and that he would keep her from accessing the firearms, but the police and courts held that she was too great a threat to 'public safety.'

link

As to further discussion of infringing rights (as in photo id and proof of citizenship for voting as in every other democracy), we'll leave that to the Fez.

Thank you for your proof that your statement has substance, though your belief that a gun would have made every thing good is, of course, opinion.

I think you'd better look at how voter registries, and IDs are done world wide, as the methods are quite different from ours, and photo IDs are not common except where they are provided by the state, in many democracies the government actively issues an ID on the national level using a nationwide standard. That is NOT true in the U.S. Where many states have a record of deliberate suppression of the vote. In fact, those very states are the most eager to enforce such laws, even though voter fraud, which is given as a reason, is almost nonexistent, and has never been proven to alter an election.

Even there the right to vote has often been restricted by legislative action. No right is pure and impervious to restriction by law in the U.S. Never has been. The 2nd amendment is no exception.

Remember, Justice Robert Jackson's statement that the constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact.

Remember, Justice Robert Jackson's statement that the constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact.

I'm fairly certain it actually was intended to be exactly that.

The founders were extremely concerned over governmental power, and expected regular, successful, popular uprisings.
-Kle.

"The founders were extremely concerned over governmental power, and expected regular, successful, popular uprisings"

Which is why Sam Adams inMassachusetts called out the militia and crushed Shay's rebellion; and Washington called out the national army and crushed the whiskey rebellion so fast.

Ignorant Blood Will Water The Tree Of Liberty

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to William Smith in 1787 regarding a rebellion led by a farmer named Shays. In dismissing the motives of the rebels as "founded in ignorance, not wickedness" he admits the "people cannot be all, & always well informed" and this must be remedied by setting "them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them." Jefferson then shrugs off the deaths of a few rebels with a now famous quote.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

If you read Jefferson's letter yourself, you too will come away with an entirely different impression of the meaning of the famous quote above. You may want to read the full letter to grasp how unimportant this farmer's rebellion was in the eyes of Jefferson. This wasn't an impassioned plea, but merely an aside in a missive he admits was "in want of facts worth communicating" and ended with him joking that we "must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform."

Which is why Sam Adams inMassachusetts called out the militia and crushed Shay's rebellion; and Washington called out the national army and crushed the whiskey rebellion so fast.

You think they weren't human beings, or something?

Obviously, once they were in power they wanted to keep it, and thought they were on the side of right. They even arguably were, in these instances.

-Kle.