Comments on: A Crack in Lautenberg? http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/18/a-crack-in-lautenberg/ Covering the Military Justice System Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:06:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tombarkley73 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/18/a-crack-in-lautenberg/comment-page-1/#comment-11347 tombarkley73 Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:02:13 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3530#comment-11347 Tony Gibart DV prevention cordinator is worried that this case might leave a wrong impression that firearm restrictions imposed on those convicted of domestic violence are somehow different in kind from similar restrictions on felons and those deemed mentally incompetent. The truth is they should be different. The key word here is misdemeanor. They can be trusted to hold public office, to vote and sit on a jury, but they cant own a gun, makes a whole lot of sense. Tony Gibart claims to have all this evidence, that seven victims have been killed with firearms with previous DV convictons. Guess what they still got there hands on guns. Out of all statistics shown I wonder if they ever show any about those being previosly convicted staying out of trouble lets say ten or twenty years, I doubt it because they claim that is goes unreported, and they feel that it give them justification to judge everybody the same. The truth is not everybod with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction comes home on a daily basis and manipulates every aspect of there spouses lives. I wonder if the statistics of those with felony and misdemeanor convictions are separate, if not they should be because they are different classes of offenders. The statistics that are shown are only partial truths. If Skoines crime was severe enough to lose his second amendment rights he should of been charged with a felony he was not, this is a failure of the judges if they are failing to do so. Good people are losing there right to bear arms as something as a silly argument. I know a few women that claim that they are tired of people like tony gibart meddling with there lives over someting as silly as a argument with there spouse. If any type of intervention was required it should have been classified as a felony. Right now it is easier for violent felons to get there second amendment rights restored than those convicted with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. I guess it is okay to take a risk of someone being a menace to an entire society over family issues. To strip one of there rights over what they think he or she might do is purely unconstitutional. To treat felons better that misdemeanants is unconstitutional. The lautenberg goes far beyond domestic violence take this terror watch list for example, they are talking about putting returning veterans from iraq and afgahanistan on it that could strip them of there second amendment rights. This is a slap in the face to our men and woman serving in uniform. Might I remind Tony Gibart that if it werent for our veterans that they would not be able to exercise any right. It is time that the government and people like tony gibart to stop micro managing americans life. They are trying to strip away the second amendment slowly with amendment after amendment. To sentence one for exercising his constitutional right is tyrany. How can one lose a constitutional right when the offense was not severe enough to lose core civil rights. The ex po facto thing has been argued time and time again, how can memebers of congress dare say that losing your god giving constitutional right is not considered punishment. America please wake up. Tony Gibart DV prevention cordinator is worried that this case might leave a wrong impression that firearm restrictions imposed on those convicted of domestic violence are somehow different in kind from similar restrictions on felons and those deemed mentally incompetent. The truth is they should be different. The key word here is misdemeanor. They can be trusted to hold public office, to vote and sit on a jury, but they cant own a gun, makes a whole lot of sense. Tony Gibart claims to have all this evidence, that seven victims have been killed with firearms with previous DV convictons. Guess what they still got there hands on guns. Out of all statistics shown I wonder if they ever show any about those being previosly convicted staying out of trouble lets say ten or twenty years, I doubt it because they claim that is goes unreported, and they feel that it give them justification to judge everybody the same. The truth is not everybod with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction comes home on a daily basis and manipulates every aspect of there spouses lives. I wonder if the statistics of those with felony and misdemeanor convictions are separate, if not they should be because they are different classes of offenders. The statistics that are shown are only partial truths. If Skoines crime was severe enough to lose his second amendment rights he should of been charged with a felony he was not, this is a failure of the judges if they are failing to do so. Good people are losing there right to bear arms as something as a silly argument. I know a few women that claim that they are tired of people like tony gibart meddling with there lives over someting as silly as a argument with there spouse. If any type of intervention was required it should have been classified as a felony. Right now it is easier for violent felons to get there second amendment rights restored than those convicted with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. I guess it is okay to take a risk of someone being a menace to an entire society over family issues. To strip one of there rights over what they think he or she might do is purely unconstitutional. To treat felons better that misdemeanants is unconstitutional. The lautenberg goes far beyond domestic violence take this terror watch list for example, they are talking about putting returning veterans from iraq and afgahanistan on it that could strip them of there second amendment rights. This is a slap in the face to our men and woman serving in uniform. Might I remind Tony Gibart that if it werent for our veterans that they would not be able to exercise any right. It is time that the government and people like tony gibart to stop micro managing americans life. They are trying to strip away the second amendment slowly with amendment after amendment. To sentence one for exercising his constitutional right is tyrany. How can one lose a constitutional right when the offense was not severe enough to lose core civil rights. The ex po facto thing has been argued time and time again, how can memebers of congress dare say that losing your god giving constitutional right is not considered punishment. America please wake up.

]]> By: Peanut Gallery http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/18/a-crack-in-lautenberg/comment-page-1/#comment-10582 Peanut Gallery Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:38:58 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3530#comment-10582 Um, people have been convicted of DV from slamming a door too hard and the intimate partner called it in. Or, yes, arguing too loudly and the neighbors complained. Not much ain't a crime these days... Um, people have been convicted of DV from slamming a door too hard and the intimate partner called it in. Or, yes, arguing too loudly and the neighbors complained. Not much ain’t a crime these days…

]]> By: drew458 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/18/a-crack-in-lautenberg/comment-page-1/#comment-10534 drew458 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:14:29 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3530#comment-10534 Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but the quoted part makes no sense to me. How can you be convicted of the crime of domestic violence if you HAVEN'T "used or attempted to use physical force" or "threatened the use of a deadly weapon"? That's what makes it VIOLENT. Otherwise it's called "having an argument" and that isn't yet a crime. Or can you be convicted of said crime if you only threatened or implied a non-lethal beating or similar merely painful violent act? Too many shades of gray for this commoner. Ok, I’m not a lawyer, but the quoted part makes no sense to me. How can you be convicted of the crime of domestic violence if you HAVEN’T “used or attempted to use physical force” or “threatened the use of a deadly weapon”? That’s what makes it VIOLENT. Otherwise it’s called “having an argument” and that isn’t yet a crime. Or can you be convicted of said crime if you only threatened or implied a non-lethal beating or similar merely painful violent act?

Too many shades of gray for this commoner.

]]> By: drew458 http://www.caaflog.com/2009/11/18/a-crack-in-lautenberg/comment-page-1/#comment-10533 drew458 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:29:55 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=3530#comment-10533 I'd like to see Lautenberg go right into the dustbin. It's always been blatantly unconstitutional in it's ex post facto wording, and calls for excessive punishment for a minor criminal act. Either make domestic violence a major violent felony, or drop this law. It's a feel-good knee-jerk from the old NJ reactionary himself, and it's high time it was dumped. At the very least limit the limitation. Cut "forever" down to 180 days or a year. We are talking about a misdemeanor. I’d like to see Lautenberg go right into the dustbin. It’s always been blatantly unconstitutional in it’s ex post facto wording, and calls for excessive punishment for a minor criminal act.

Either make domestic violence a major violent felony, or drop this law. It’s a feel-good knee-jerk from the old NJ reactionary himself, and it’s high time it was dumped.

At the very least limit the limitation. Cut “forever” down to 180 days or a year. We are talking about a misdemeanor.

]]>