Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ence-cases



The U.S. Supreme Court backed the broad application of a federal law barring firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, ruling it could be used against two men convicted under a Maine law.




The justices voted 6-2 in the case, which drew attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions during arguments for the first time in a decade. Thomas dissented from the ruling.

Interesting that it was Thomas and Sotomayor that dissented

dbackjon wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ence-cases



The U.S. Supreme Court backed the broad application of a federal law barring firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, ruling it could be used against two men convicted under a Maine law.




The justices voted 6-2 in the case, which drew attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions during arguments for the first time in a decade. Thomas dissented from the ruling.

EXAMPLE:

I have a brother. We live in the same house. We get into a fight over dumb stuff but it is just that, a brother fight. One or both of us get arrested for domestic violence, because we live in the same house.

Now neither one of us can own guns? Or am I reading it wrong?

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ence-cases



The U.S. Supreme Court backed the broad application of a federal law barring firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, ruling it could be used against two men convicted under a Maine law.




The justices voted 6-2 in the case, which drew attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions during arguments for the first time in a decade. Thomas dissented from the ruling.

EXAMPLE:

I have a brother. We live in the same house. We get into a fight over dumb stuff but it is just that, a brother fight. One or both of us get arrested for domestic violence, because we live in the same house.

Now neither one of us can own guns? Or am I reading it wrong?

I don't think that would qualify as domestic violence.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ence-cases



The U.S. Supreme Court backed the broad application of a federal law barring firearm possession by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, ruling it could be used against two men convicted under a Maine law.




The justices voted 6-2 in the case, which drew attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions during arguments for the first time in a decade. Thomas dissented from the ruling.

EXAMPLE:

I have a brother. We live in the same house. We get into a fight over dumb stuff but it is just that, a brother fight. One or both of us get arrested for domestic violence, because we live in the same house.

Now neither one of us can own guns? Or am I reading it wrong?

No, domestic violence is violence and/or abuse at a home and is typically one spouse/partner over another.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
EXAMPLE:

I have a brother. We live in the same house. We get into a fight over dumb stuff but it is just that, a brother fight. One or both of us get arrested for domestic violence, because we live in the same house.

Now neither one of us can own guns? Or am I reading it wrong?

I don't think that would qualify as domestic violence.

It does.

Ibanez wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
EXAMPLE:

I have a brother. We live in the same house. We get into a fight over dumb stuff but it is just that, a brother fight. One or both of us get arrested for domestic violence, because we live in the same house.

Now neither one of us can own guns? Or am I reading it wrong?

No, domestic violence is violence and/or abuse at a home and is typically one spouse/partner over another.

Kinda...

Each state is a bit different but domestic abuse is, essentially:

Violence (emotional, physical, economic, sexual, etc...) against anyone you've ever been intimate with or live with, relation to that person doesn't really matter.

In the state of Montana

(a) "Family member" means mothers, fathers, children, brothers, sisters, and other past or present family members of a household. These relationships include relationships created by adoption and remarriage, including stepchildren, stepparents, in-laws, and adoptive children and parents. These relationships continue regardless of the ages of the parties and whether the parties reside in the same household.
(b) "Partners" means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common, and persons who have been or are currently in a dating or ongoing intimate relationship.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-serv ... ships.aspx

Turns out, not knowing the law but creating laws, or wanting laws created without knowing the full justification of it, can create a fuck up of massive size.


A person can get a domestic filed against them by getting in a fight with an adopted cousin that lives in the house.

Domestic laws at this point point to "pretty much everything qualifies as domestic"


Oh, spent a ton of time doing research on domestic violence in college and worked with a leading professor in domestic education on criteria and research. This is my potential emphasis for my masters degree. Fuck with me on this one.

clenz wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
No, domestic violence is violence and/or abuse at a home and is typically one spouse/partner over another.

Kinda...

Domestic violence is the willful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other abusive behavior as part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one intimate partner against another. It includes physical violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, and emotional abuse.

http://www.ncadv.org/need-help/what-is- ... c-violence

Aside from being all technical, how is my basic definition a "kinda"?


Edit: I see your other post. I get what you're saying.

Ibanez wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
EXAMPLE:

I have a brother. We live in the same house. We get into a fight over dumb stuff but it is just that, a brother fight. One or both of us get arrested for domestic violence, because we live in the same house.

Now neither one of us can own guns? Or am I reading it wrong?

No, domestic violence is violence and/or abuse at a home and is typically one spouse/partner over another.

Under SC state law, the situation grizzaholic described would qualify as domestic violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
No, domestic violence is violence and/or abuse at a home and is typically one spouse/partner over another.

Under SC state law, the situation grizzaholic described would qualify as domestic violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In essentially every state it would.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
No, domestic violence is violence and/or abuse at a home and is typically one spouse/partner over another.

Under SC state law, the situation grizzaholic described would qualify as domestic violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. THen my brothers and I should be locked up...

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Under SC state law, the situation grizzaholic described would qualify as domestic violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. THen my brothers and I should be locked up...

Well, if your fights with your brothers over "dumb stuff" are loud and/or violent enough that people are calling the cops on you, you might just want to take a chill pill...

clenz wrote:Each state is a bit different but domestic abuse is, essentially:

Violence (emotional, physical, economic, sexual, etc...) against anyone you've ever been intimate with or live with, relation to that person doesn't really matter.

In the state of Montana

(a) "Family member" means mothers, fathers, children, brothers, sisters, and other past or present family members of a household. These relationships include relationships created by adoption and remarriage, including stepchildren, stepparents, in-laws, and adoptive children and parents. These relationships continue regardless of the ages of the parties and whether the parties reside in the same household.
(b) "Partners" means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common, and persons who have been or are currently in a dating or ongoing intimate relationship.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-serv ... ships.aspx

In your fucking face Dback! I finally got one of these ruling/hypotheticals right!!!!

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Wow. THen my brothers and I should be locked up...

Well, if your fights with your brothers over "dumb stuff" are loud and/or violent enough that people are calling the cops on you, you might just want to take a chill pill...

It was always over dumb stuff.


My brother Frank did shoot me with a pellet gun once. Put the barrel right up to my thigh and pulled the trigger.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Wow. THen my brothers and I should be locked up...

Well, if your fights with your brothers over "dumb stuff" are loud and/or violent enough that people are calling the cops on you, you might just want to take a chill pill...

So you and your brother are wrestling around and one of you gets a bloody nose in your front yard. The nosy lady across the street sees this and calls the cops. In states that have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy toward domestic violence, one/both of you MUST be arrested and you will hope to sort things out with the judge.

Ibanez wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Under SC state law, the situation grizzaholic described would qualify as domestic violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. THen my brothers and I should be locked up...

This is when the nuances of low get overlooked to make angry crowds happy

grizzaholic wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Well, if your fights with your brothers over "dumb stuff" are loud and/or violent enough that people are calling the cops on you, you might just want to take a chill pill...

So you and your brother are wrestling around and one of you gets a bloody nose in your front yard. The nosy lady across the street sees this and calls the cops. In states that have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy toward domestic violence, one/both of you MUST be arrested and you will hope to sort things out with the judge.

Yup. At least one person has to be arrested and charged. No questions asked. If it's only one its up to the cops to decide who

Can anyone name one crime (outside of this ruling) where a misdemeanor conviction takes away a Constitutional right?

clenz wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So you and your brother are wrestling around and one of you gets a bloody nose in your front yard. The nosy lady across the street sees this and calls the cops. In states that have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy toward domestic violence, one/both of you MUST be arrested and you will hope to sort things out with the judge.

Yup. At least one person has to be arrested and charged. No questions asked. If it's only one its up to the cops to decide who

Most domestic violence laws dictate that if a primary aggressor cannot be determined, then both parties are charged. More times than not, bith go to jail as mutual combatants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grizzaholic wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Well, if your fights with your brothers over "dumb stuff" are loud and/or violent enough that people are calling the cops on you, you might just want to take a chill pill...

So you and your brother are wrestling around and one of you gets a bloody nose in your front yard. The nosy lady across the street sees this and calls the cops. In states that have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy toward domestic violence, one/both of you MUST be arrested and you will hope to sort things out with the judge.

I don't have brothers, BUT, if you're both grown ass men and you can't work things out without resorting to a fist fight in the front yard (that's pretty trashy to be honest), then I don't have much sympathy for you if you end up in legal trouble.

But at the same time, I don't think you should necessarily lose your gun rights over it, depending on the circumstances.

Grizalltheway wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So you and your brother are wrestling around and one of you gets a bloody nose in your front yard. The nosy lady across the street sees this and calls the cops. In states that have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy toward domestic violence, one/both of you MUST be arrested and you will hope to sort things out with the judge.

I don't have brothers, BUT, if you're both grown ass men and you can't work things out without resorting to a fist fight in the front yard (that's pretty trashy to be honest), then I don't have much sympathy for you if you end up in legal trouble.

But at the same time, I don't think you should necessarily lose your gun rights over it, depending on the circumstances.

Nowhere in my post did I say fight. I just said wrestling around...you know, foolin' around or goofing off?

CID1990 wrote:

clenz wrote: Yup. At least one person has to be arrested and charged. No questions asked. If it's only one its up to the cops to decide who

Most domestic violence laws dictate that if a primary aggressor cannot be determined, then both parties are charged. More times than not, bith go to jail as mutual combatants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a coworker that had to deal with the system screwing him in the last year.

Long story short his girlfriend (now ex) was drunk on a Sun night/Mon morning. Bar closed and wouldn't let her drive. They called him to get her. Witnesses told cops they witnessed her swing at him because he wouldn't let her drive when he got there. This was 230 AM. He leaves for work at 530.

At 245 PM, so 13 hours after it all started, she shows up at the police station to file a domestic charge against him. He's arrested at work at 415 pm and charged with domestic assault with intent to seriously injure, strangulation and something else.

Well she waited until so late in they day because she was still drunk and smelled of booze and couldn't have driven or not gotten public intoxat the station. She also timed it so that he couldn't bond out that night, intentionally.

Went through 8 months of court hearings and all that comes with it. He wasn't allowed into his apartment because she was living there. He couldn't get any of his things. They finally got her out but she stole 2 iPads, Bose sound system, a laptop, etc... But he couldn't file it as stolen since "he gave her access to use it". He also bought a car and was letting her drive it. She took of in the car. He's SOL. He can't report it as stolen since he title is in the car when she took off with it. It's under his name, her name isn't on it, it's his insurance, everything. Nothing can be done about it.

Well, after months of investigating his lawyer was able to prove everything was 100% made up and he got a 1 year deferred if he completed batterer rehab, or some shit like that, and didn't get a single ticket of any kind during his 1 year probation. Any legal issues is an automatic guilty on all abuse charges even though the judge agreed it was 100% made up. Oh, yeah, judge says it's made up but he still is on probation. That's screwed up.


There's been an over correction to the lack of proper punishment for this type of crime. His photo was included in all forms of media that put or mug shots and criminal complaints. It's on his public court record so any background check will pop it up.


The courts will do the same thing to BOTh parties of it wants too. It's all up to the courts of they want to pursue charges.

clenz wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Most domestic violence laws dictate that if a primary aggressor cannot be determined, then both parties are charged. More times than not, bith go to jail as mutual combatants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a coworker that had to deal with the system screwing him in the last year.

Long story short his girlfriend (now ex) was drunk on a Sun night/Mon morning. Bar closed and wouldn't let her drive. They called him to get her. Witnesses told cops they witnessed her swing at him because he wouldn't let her drive when he got there. This was 230 AM. He leaves for work at 530.

At 245 PM, so 13 hours after it all started, she shows up at the police station to file a domestic charge against him. He's arrested at work at 415 pm and charged with domestic assault with intent to seriously injure, strangulation and something else.

Well she waited until so late in they day because she was still drunk and smelled of booze and couldn't have driven or not gotten public intoxat the station. She also timed it so that he couldn't bond out that night, intentionally.

Went through 8 months of court hearings and all that comes with it. He wasn't allowed into his apartment because she was living there. He couldn't get any of his things. They finally got her out but she stole 2 iPads, Bose sound system, a laptop, etc... But he couldn't file it as stolen since "he gave her access to use it". He also bought a car and was letting her drive it. She took of in the car. He's SOL. He can't report it as stolen since he title is in the car when she took off with it. It's under his name, her name isn't on it, it's his insurance, everything. Nothing can be done about it.

Well, after months of investigating his lawyer was able to prove everything was 100% made up and he got a 1 year deferred if he completed batterer rehab, or some shit like that, and didn't get a single ticket of any kind during his 1 year probation. Any legal issues is an automatic guilty on all abuse charges even though the judge agreed it was 100% made up. Oh, yeah, judge says it's made up but he still is on probation. That's screwed up.


There's been an over correction to the lack of proper punishment for this type of crime. His photo was included in all forms of media that put or mug shots and criminal complaints. It's on his public court record so any background check will pop it up.


The courts will do the same thing to BOTh parties of it wants too. It's all up to the courts of they want to pursue charges.

Someone mentioned earlier "zero tolerance" which is also bullshit. Zero tolerance policies mean someone is afraid to do their job or afraid of legal action. It insulates judges, school administrators etc. from criticism and is just plain lazy.

clenz wrote:Each state is a bit different but domestic abuse is, essentially:

Violence (emotional, physical, economic, sexual, etc...) against anyone you've ever been intimate with or live with, relation to that person doesn't really matter.



Oh, spent a ton of time doing research on domestic violence in college and worked with a leading professor in domestic education on criteria and research. This is my potential emphasis for my masters degree. Fuck with me on this one.

It's a good thing we've never been intimate or else you just committed domestic violence.