Posted: 9/1/2012 7:26:39 AM EDT
okay - let see how this goes 
I have a question about domestic violence conviction and future use of firearms. My step brother was just charged with DV (details not needed for question). No trial yet as the situation is unfolding. IF there is a conviction it is my understanding that he loses rights to keep/purchase firearms. I am assuming that this also means to use them? For example - if I visit the home in which he is living and I bring a weapon, then decide to take the weapon out back to target shoot, he should not be allowed to handle the weapon. If he was we would potentially both be in violation (one for providing the firearm and another for him being in possession). Is that accurate? How about any firearms in the house in which he lives until he gets back on his feet? They are not his - but belong to the home owner and are kept secured. Thanks |
|
domestic violence is a serious problem.
HOWEVER, it should have never been lowed to a misdeamenor for firearm banning. it should be for felony convictions. there are way to many issues with he said/ she said, to ruin a mans life and take away his right to own guns, and self defense. people fight, and women like to slap. if you end up slapping your wife back, in a argument, i dont think you should face any charges at all. however, if your a real abuser, yes, you should be prosecuted. with the current laws, if your step brother is convicted of domestic violence, hes screwed. he might get away with owning a compound bow, or crossbow. |
|
He needs a really good lawyer, this is not a joke, a lawyer who knows all DV statutes on a state and federal level.
Well; he has to to found "not guilty" period; at all costs. He will have problems with background checks so he will need the disposition record. If convicted under any DV statute Lautenberg gets him. No guns for him. I cannot think of any other ramifications, but could affect future employment greatly. 
If he pleads out he must be very careful of what he pleads out to. His lawyer needs to read Lautenberg. If he did something stupid, he may be able to find away to buy this lady off and never ever have contact with her again; period. She will be radioactive forever. |
|
Not going to go into to many details but from what I have heard third hand there were mutual blows struck. The female was the first to get hold of the police. Nothing major but they both had bumps and bruises. Divorce is immanent.
Hopefully he will be able to have the charges dropped. In any case - IF he gets banded from firearms - does that mean the home he lives in should also be firearm free? If he stays with his dad - and his dad has weapons - will they need to be relocated until the son moves out. Thanks |
|
Quoted:
Not going to go into to many details but from what I have heard third hand there were mutual blows struck. The female was the first to get hold of the police. Nothing major but they both had bumps and bruises. Divorce is immanent. Hopefully he will be able to have the charges dropped. In any case - IF he gets banded from firearms - does that mean the home he lives in should also be firearm free? If he stays with his dad - and his dad has weapons - will they need to be relocated until the son moves out. I don't have any first-hand experience with this, but it has been discussed here many times by lawyers and LEO's. 1) First, make sure he gets the best possible criminal defense attorney money can buy. I'm sure money will be tight, but he needs to set aside some $$ specifically for the DV charge. Make sure he uses someone specifically for the DV charge and not a divorce attorney that may not know all the ins and outs about defending a DV case. Make sure he doesn't half-ass it. It's a lot easier and cheaper to get it done right the first time around than to appeal. A good attorney can get the charge reduced to something that won't be considered DV. 2) If the firearms are locked up and he doesn't have any access then it should be OK. However, it's been posted here before that people with a DV conviction have been charged with illegal possession of a firearm even though they were locked up. So, to be on the safe side, he should not be in a home/apartment that has firearms. Obviously you can't take him shooting with you out back. He can't have any access to firearms let alone handle or fire one if he is convicted. 3) Presuming she struck the first blow, teach him that next time he needs to leave the area. No good can come from a woman all fired up like that. If he struck the first blow, tell him he is a dumbass and needs to walk away next time. |
|
He's fucked.
She has bumps and bruises? Even if she hit him first, he's fucked. Even if she doesn't show up to court, I'm sure the prosecutor will have pictures of her bumps and bruises. He's fucked. He can not have possession after his imminent conviction. Sounds like he's a dumbass to boot. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's widely known that DV is a serious issue. The chances of ever hitting a chick, no matter the circumstances, and getting away with it (including self defense) are pretty remote. |
|
Quoted:
He's fucked. She has bumps and bruises? Even if she hit him first, he's fucked. Even if she doesn't show up to court, I'm sure the prosecutor will have pictures of her bumps and bruises. He's fucked. He can not have possession after his imminent conviction. Sounds like he's a dumbass to boot. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's widely known that DV is a serious issue. The chances of ever hitting a chick, no matter the circumstances, and getting away with it (including self defense) are pretty remote. From what I was told it was a defensive move (again not going to provide many details). But I agree - it is going to be a long hard road with a slim chance for a good outcome. The proper steps are being taken on all fronts. I just wish he would have gotten out sooner. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's fucked. She has bumps and bruises? Even if she hit him first, he's fucked. Even if she doesn't show up to court, I'm sure the prosecutor will have pictures of her bumps and bruises. He's fucked. He can not have possession after his imminent conviction. Sounds like he's a dumbass to boot. I'm not saying it's fair, but it's widely known that DV is a serious issue. The chances of ever hitting a chick, no matter the circumstances, and getting away with it (including self defense) are pretty remote. From what I was told it was a defensive move (again not going to provide many details). But I agree - it is going to be a long hard road with a slim chance for a good outcome. The proper steps are being taken on all fronts. I just wish he would have gotten out sooner. Best wishes for your brother. Sounds like what my brother went through/is going through. Stuck his dick in crazy, got her pregnant. Tried to save the relationship and got in an argument. SHE threw the then-6 week old baby onto the couch and pulled a knife on my brother. He kicked her to get her to drop the knife. Both were arrested for DV, but he's the one who got a conviction. Now, with her documented history of incarceration, drug use, loss of parental rights of another child and violence in the eyes of the family courts she can do no wrong, and I can't even give my brother a ride in my car unless I sweep it for ammo because he would have access to it. |
|
A "friend" got off the hook in a similar situation by claiming self-defense. It's an uphill battle because most DA's don't know/want to deal with a man striking a woman in self-defense. In the "friends" case; he had the scars to prove she clawed him. It took a month or more for the DA's office to decide to not charge him. She got a deferred prosecution deal and had to got to anger management classes.
In a more recent incident; a "friend" got involved in something he shouldn't have. No blows struck but there was a struggle. He got charged with Disorderly Conduct/Domestic Violence, was convicted and did a year on probation. Remains to be seen how it's going to shake out with the firearms but his attorney was smart enough, hopefully, to make sure there was NO FINDING OF VIOLENCE by the court. Allegations, yes, but no "finding", so the attorney says he's good. We'll see. The "no finding" language is in the fine print on the 4473's if anyone wants to look it up. Main thing is to make sure he gets an attorney that understands ALL the implications. Many of them don't and are just looking to make a deal with the DA and move on. |