NJ Court Denies Man Right to Own Guns Based on Prior Accusation — But Not Conviction — of Domestic Violence

Kimber Ultra CDP II (courtesy wcpo.com)

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and recognized as such by the US supreme court. But apparently a judge in New Jersey thinks that its perfectly acceptable to deny an individual this court recognized civil right simply because he was once accused of domestic violence. Here I was under the impression that American citizens have a right to due process and are innocent until proven guilty, but apparently a man accused of domestic violence isn’t subject to those same constitutional protections. And now, the judge has ripped another amendment from his bill of rights.

From NJ.com:

A New Jersey appeals court ruled Wednesday that a Monmouth County man can legally be denied a gun permit because he was accused of domestic violence in the past, even though he was never convicted.

A three-judge appellate panel ruled that both the Aberdeen police chief and a state Superior Court judge were within their authority under New Jersey law to reject the application of a man — identified only as Z.L. — to buy a handgun and keep it in his home.

Z.L. had applied for a permit in 2013, but a background check revealed that he was arrested in 1998 on a domestic violence charge and that police had been called to his Aberdeen home on five other occasions, according to court papers.

The police chief in the Monmouth County township denied the application though Z.L. was acquitted in 1998, the papers say. The chief said the man’s “past history of domestic violence” may be enough to “indicate a public safety concern,” the documents say.

[…]

Judge John Kennedy wrote that Z.L. has shown “the potential for violent reaction.”

“The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal,” Kennedy wrote for the panel.

“Even if an applicant was previously charged with an offense, but not convicted, in a later permit hearing the chief may still present to the court the evidence underlying the charges,” Kennedy added. “The 1998 incident was not isolated or aberrational, as appellant claims.”

New Jersey is one of those states where a permit is required to exercise your constitutionally protected rights, and especially in New Jersey the police have broad latitude when it comes to issuing those permits. So much so that a New Jersey permit is more rare than an empty seat at the Superbowl. I’d love to see this case work its way up the chain, and hopefully get New Jersey’s insane permitting system torn down once and for all. But then again, this is New Jersey we’re talking about, and its usually best to just lock your doors and keep driving through.

comments

  1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I hope this judge is ripped from his seat on the bench permanently too.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      “shall not be infringed” means just that. There are NO Constitutional gun laws in this country. Tell me how someone who owns a business MUST provide a service to someone which will support a contradiction of his religious beliefs based on some weird perceived non implicit/explicit “right” of the customer yet a stated civil right gets thrown in the trash for no reason. We need to fight back.

  2. avatar mike oregon says:

    How much due process do you really need, I mean it’s not like this could happen to me. Right.

  3. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Have to reply to myself I guess as I cant edit yet again.

    I meant those judges as in the plural.
    Still the Republik of NJ?? isn’t it

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Wait about thirty seconds and then reload the page. If that doesn’t work then try loading the page in a new window. If the edit button comes up but the timer is above something like 5 minutes, 30 seconds then wait until it is closer to being 5 minutes or below to try editing if it told you that the time to edit has ended.

      Hopefully, these things will work for you. I have to do them sometimes here.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The edit function is screwy. Another thing which has worked for me is to hit “reply”, and then when that window opens, scroll back up to your post and see if the “edit” is open, if so use it. If not, hit “reply” to the post above yours, and scroll up again.

  4. avatar Justin says:

    You did read “The Blue Tent Sky” right…right?

    If you had this would certainly not come as a shock.

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am rather hoping that this case works its way to the U.S. Supreme Court so that we can strike down all of the laws that violate our Fifth Amendment right to due process.

    And, NO … an arrest, a law passed in the legislature that “empowers” local police chiefs to deny firearms based on their “judgement”, and said local police chief denying firearms is NOT due process.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      I second your motion

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      New Jersey has a penchant for “handling” these cases before they get to a court that will smack down their unconstitutional laws.

      I would like for one of these cases to make it to a court outside of New Jersey, for once.

  6. avatar SurfGW says:

    That is how Lautenberg works. Try enlisting in the military or applying for a police job and saying that you were only “accused” of domestic violence. Until a judge restores your Lautenberg status to own a weapon (which no judge will do without you filing to restore your rights), the accusation is presumed to be sufficient. ZL needs to do his research

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      While our courts may be operating as you stated, their operation is clearly unconstitutional. An arrest or mere accusation is not sufficient cause for government to deny someone their rights.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        HAHAHA! You must never have heard of ‘asset forfeiture’!

      2. avatar Raven says:

        Steve’s correct about the civil asset forfeiture laws (roadside interdiction is one of the guises they hide it under). It’s by far not the only illegal law on the books that attempts to abrogate our rights. Fortunately, ye olde founding fathers foresight to preclude that possibility, not that the government on federal, state, and local levels don’t completely ignore that, and prior court precedent to boot.

        None of that matters, as SCOTUS won’t take umbrage with those irrelevant & illegal laws… So what’s a citizen to do?

    2. avatar scott says:

      So if you are accused of child molestation or child abuse you carry that you are one even if not convicted that is not due process. If accused was all it needed to be to lock someone up or remove their rights we all would have our rights taken from us. Can you not say you have never been accused of doin something wrong in your life your lying to yourself. I have know someone that has been accused of domestic violence never convicted owns guns and also has ccw permit that the state questioned showed proof of no conviction and got the ccw permit so this against this guy in NJ is wrong, totally wrong.

  7. avatar Silver says:

    I’m ashamed to have been born and raised in New Jersey. I don’t live there anymore, and I feel like an immigrant who’s tasted freedom and can only look back in horror at how evil his former country truly was, if only he’d been able to see clearly before.

    It’s mind boggling that some foreign countries are more in line with American values than several American states.

  8. avatar Pg2 says:

    Permits=privilege. Anywhere you are required to obtain a permit for something, it is no longer a right.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Exactly! The problem is that New Jersey requires a “permit” to do something that is a “fundamental human right” not a “privilege”. Permission to exercise a “privilege” can be denied much more easily than the exercise of a “fundamental right”.

      This judge should be impeached, but more importantly the tyrannical, and unconstitutional law of New Jersey must be cast down.

      Imagine if New Jersey required a “permit” for someone to practice Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, and then denies a person that “permit” because of something in their past. What if New Jersey required a “permit” for you to buy a newspaper, and then denied you that permit since someone once accused you of failing to recycle paper products.

      The right to bear arms is just as fundamental as the freedom of religion and the press.

      New Jersey is a dying state.

    2. avatar Ray says:

      That I so true, and is why we shouldn’t need a permit to carry.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yup. It ceases to be the exercise of a right the moment one must beg government’s permission; no matter how easy, difficult, expensive, or no cost.

  9. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Chicago and the Illinois legislature ignored the 2A until the federal courts bitch-slapped them into reality on two separate occasions. It’s time they did the same in New Jersey.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Yep…although if the Po-leece came to my house 5 times there might be a problem. Sorry I had to point that out…

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        …there might be a problem…” is not sufficient grounds to deny someone a constitutionally protected, natural right, especially when the accused was tried and acquitted of the related charges.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Good point(s).

        2. avatar george from fort worth says:

          and none of us will be found lamenting the eventual death by firearm of a family member because 2A.

        3. avatar Former Water Walker says:

          Pretty much why I used the word”might” Chip…no apology given.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        Having police come to your home 5 times could be arranged quite easily, as a matter of fact.

  10. avatar foo dog says:

    Good job, Nick, on high-lighting this- its exactly the kind of abuse of process that 2A folks warned of in Californias passage of the “common sense” smart guns law – GVRO.

    There are related cases under way in CA, in Birdt, and Enos.
    Google or go to calguns.net for more.
    Tyler vs Hillsdale applies to groups denied for past classification as non-gun-rights forever. The 6th CA got it right, there and its related, in terms of that decision as to strict scrutiny.

    The left-propaganda and top-down repression of civil rights in 2A will get worse before it gets better- and NJ is the early indicator of how laws are created and abused by corrupt lawmakers, in order to deny citizen rights. Information savvy Americans are awake, and the sea change is underway- see latest Pew Research on opinions about gun rights…but the slow opposition in the courts, to roll back politicians abuse of the law, in places like NJ happens only when citizens take action, and that starts with education and awareness, so thanks again to you, staff and writers at TTAG. You are doing a great job.

    2A laws are the canary in the coal mine of what coordinated, community organized, with media collusion of what can only be called “progtard fascism” means to all Americans.

    “Can’t stop the signal, Mal”

  11. avatar Aaron says:

    NJ is a gawdawful shiite-hole. From the high taxes, to toxic refineries on I-95, to REQUIRING motorists to pay for somebody to pump their gas, to obviating the US Constitution.

    But hey, at least all of that shredding of the Constitution has turned Newark into a safe, crime free utopia. Oh wait, never mind.

  12. avatar Gunr says:

    The question I have would be: If the cops were at his place at least six times, why were this couple still together, Time to leave!

  13. avatar chuck (hates nj) says:

    “New Jersey is one of those states where a permit is required to exercise your constitutionally protected rights, and especially in New Jersey the police have broad latitude when it comes to issuing those permits. So much so that a New Jersey permit is more rare than an empty seat at the Superbowl.” Pretty sure this case is about an FID card or pistol purchase permit not the near non existent carry permits.

  14. avatar george from fort worth says:

    guess i remain clueless regarding balancing RIGHTS against RIGHTS. if zl had been merely accused by a neighbor, or even another family member (see calif et al) without being arrested, i could see a clear 2A problem here. however, there was an arrest, and apparently several other instances where police were at the scene. are we looking at someone who was (and maybe still is) on track to kill a spouse or other family member? if the answer is “maybe”, would we proudly hail 2A if the murder took place? are we supporting the notion that until someone is dead or seriously injured, there is never grounds for preventing gun ownership? will we hold to our unfettered principal when the threat is directed at us?

    do we not recognize there are instances where hard core resistance to any restriction whatever, for any reason makes us supportive (accomplices?) of great bodily harm to innocents (assuming there were innocents)?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      He was never convicted of a crime. Do you have a problem with presumed innocence unless proven guilty under the law and genuine due process?

      1. avatar george from fort worth says:

        nope. but is it logical/sensible to ignore blatant bad behavior that threatens others? as i said, if there was the single event (adjudicated or not) of ALLEGED spousal/family abuse, the entire situation would be different. but there is evidence present that zl is a frequent abuser/angry male or whatever. the question is “are we handcuffed in preventing a possible murder or life-changing injury simply because loss of gun ownership is on the table?” i suspect we will all simply scuff the dirt with our feet, put our hands in our pockets and wander off when we learn zl finally kills a family member….WITH A GUN. “he was crazy, he was out of control, and we all knew his behavior would end this way. BUT BY GOD, HE HAD A RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN…REGARDLESS”.

        situations like zl are not cartoon black and white. we should not provide a cartoon response. everyone has a natural right to armed defense, until one proves unable to properly exercise that right. behavior patterns are not courtroom proof, but why do we judge people by their behavior outside a courtroom, under any circumstance. would you loan money to a person with several arrests for embezzlement…for which they were never convicted? why not?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          There are plenty of places in this world where you can be subjected to a wide range of punishments up to and including beheading, without ever being convicted of anything at all. But America is not one of them. You need to wake up, you’re making a very complex thing of something very simple, and yes, it is black and white. If you have a problem with him being a danger to his wife, feel free to move in with her to defend her. That is constitutional. Feel free to hire her a full time bodyguard. That is constitutional. Feel free to buy her a gun and training. That is constitutional. Might not be LEGAL, but it is constitutional. But removing a man’s natural civil rights when he has been convicted of nothing is just plain wrong. And unconstitutional, and should be easy grounds to remove that judge from the bench.

        2. avatar george from fort worth says:

          glad to know 2A trumps common sense, prudence and reasonableness in all cases. fortunately for zl, prior bad acts or pattern of behavior will not be considered at his murder trial. we can all smugly wring our hands that, “well, it is tragic that no one did anything to prevent the death even with all the prior bad behavior. but hey, that is the price some luckless schmucks pay for living in america.”

          when zl appears in ttag after killing someone, please do not be one of those who shout, “someone shudda done something be fore it came to this.”

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          the question is “are we handcuffed in preventing a possible murder or life-changing injury simply because loss of gun ownership is on the table?”

          Yes, we are. You miss the whole concept of a free society if you don’t understand this simple point. Freedom includes responsibility and risk. You are trying to shirk your responsibility and risk while claiming freedom. It doesn’t work that way.

        4. avatar george from fort worth says:

          nope. trying to demonstrate that people whose behavior pattern shows serious propensity to shirk responsibility and shift risk to others should not get a free pass on firearms, limited only after they kill someone in a domestic dispute.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          under any circumstance. would you loan money to a person with several arrests for embezzlement…for which they were never convicted? why not?

          *Achoo* Excuse me. I’m allergic to straw and your posts are loaded with it. 😉

          The person has no right to my money so I am not compelled to loan it to them. On the flip side, since they have a right to money they earn, I would never call for the stripping of their money which they rightfully and lawfully earned. (Notice, I’m not talking about embezzled money.) Additionally, I wouldn’t call for the stripping of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms if they are not currently in lawful legitimate custody of a legitimate guardian.

        6. avatar george from fort worth says:

          talking about a pattern of behavior here. if you would not loan money to someone whose demonstrated pattern of behavior is that they steal, why would you allow someone who demonstrates they are prone to violence be allowed to exercise a right to arms that will likely result in violating the right of others to be safe in their persons and homes? your rights (all of them) stop at the end of my nose. if someone wants to be irresponsible with my safety, by which right must i now be responsible for enduring that behavior?

        7. avatar David says:

          “but is it logical/sensible to ignore blatant bad behavior that threatens others?”

          Question begging. Should we really take the word of NJ cops on this one? The details mater. In many places if the cops get called, regarding domestic violence (whether it is or its not), the male is presumed to be the aggressor unless he is dead – and even then sometimes.

          And if this guy is such a danger why are we letting him vote, reproduce, and give him access to hundreds (thousands) of deadly devices other than a firearm?

        8. avatar george from fort worth says:

          all good questions; glad you asked.

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          your rights (all of them) stop at the end of my nose.

          Your own statement invalidates your argument that he ought to be prevented from exercising his right to keep and bear arms. He has not been convicted. He has done nothing to you. So, how do you figure that you have some special right or authority to deny him his basic right?

          if someone wants to be irresponsible with my safety, by which right must i now be responsible for enduring that behavior?

          Who is being irresponsible with your safety and how? You are responsible for your own safety. He’s done nothing to you, right?

        10. avatar Paul G says:

          Stop making sense, John. It hurts his head.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          the overarching point is that no rights are absolute under all conditions at all times. the constitution is not a suicide pact.

        12. avatar Paul G says:

          The BoR includes the exceptions to the absolutes regarding the rights enumerated. Any others would require an amendment and likely would still not be legitimate.
          If you think of others having absolute rights as a suicide pact, I have some bad news for you. People with malicious intent will get a gun regardless, or in a worst case just use some other weapon, maybe something unorthodox like a pressure cooker.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          i agree. people can somehow purchase guns illegally, and often do. not sure that fact means we must/should allow the legal purchase for people like zl.

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If I understand this correctly, there is no habit for abuse (convicted or not) that would cause you to wish to prohibit a person from legally obtaining a handgun. If the theory is that a crime must be committed before a right is taken away, would that apply to using deadly force in self-defense before you are physically touched? Before you suffer damage? Before a crime is actually committed? If we use our handgun to prevent an attack, do we not preemptively deny the right of the attacker to do anything he/she wants up until the first contact (crime committed)?

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          why would you allow someone who demonstrates they are prone to violence be allowed to exercise a right to arms that will likely result in violating the right of others to be safe in their persons and homes?

          It’s not up to you or me to “allow” or “deny” him that right. If you are worried about him violating your rights then be prepared to defend yourself. I don’t know what else to tell you.

        16. avatar Sam I Am says:

          so long as we all agree that when a person known to be a serious risk to the personal safety of others finally kills someone, none of us attack “the system” for not preventing the death.

        17. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul G: lol. I get the serious impression that we’re feeding something trollish here. I don’t have the energy to expend so I’m going to try to stop feeding it. 😉

        18. avatar Sam I Am says:

          if i were trolling, i would be long gone by now. the situation discussed is a serious matter. absolutism leads to absurdity, every time. limitless “rights” lead to chaos. and unnecessary injury.

        19. avatar Paul G says:

          Now that is an absurd comment! Contrary to the founder’s ideals as well. It is government that needs limiting. Righfs are natural and inherent.

        20. avatar Sam I Am says:

          yes they are. and not absolute at all times in all conditions.

        21. avatar John in Ohio says:

          If I understand this correctly, there is no habit for abuse (convicted or not) that would cause you to wish to prohibit a person from legally obtaining a handgun.

          That is my position. Unless the person is in lawful, legitimate custody of a legitimate guardian, their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms ought not be infringed. When the individual is in custody of a legitimate guardian, that guardian is temporarily responsible for the reasonable safety of that individual. Some examples include but are not limited to: A child and parent. A patient and surgeon. A prisoner and guard. An incompetent and designated guardian. A defendant in a criminal case during the actual trial proceedings in the courtroom. If there is not a guardian responsible for the reasonable safety of the individual then that individual ought not be deprived the exercise of their right to keep and bear arms. For example, a person on probation or parole ought not be deprived their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms unless they have an appointed guard responsible for their reasonable safety. If you strip the individual of the ability to defend themselves with something such as a firearm then you become responsible for their reasonable safety by acting in their stead. You take the ability away, you become responsible.

          If the theory is that a crime must be committed before a right is taken away,

          Firstly, a right cannot be taken away because rights are inalienable to the individual. The free exercise of a right is what is curtailed. The right itself remains with the individual. Secondly, yes, unless a crime is committed, the free exercise of the right is the prerogative of the individual. If someone is merely armed, that doesn’t mean anything until they begin to raise serious, imminent threat to another. Remember, we are discussing limits upon GOVERNMENT in this discussion.

          would that apply to using deadly force in self-defense before you are physically touched?

          Not necessarily. That’s silly because a simple example of a person intentionally pointing a firearm at you would more likely than not indicate a valid response of self defense.

          Before you suffer damage?

          That is also nonsensical. Please see above.

          Before a crime is actually committed?

          That depends on how you are using the term “crime” and to what severity that crime is and how imminent & severe the harm is reasonably likely to be.

          If we use our handgun to prevent an attack, do we not preemptively deny the right of the attacker to do anything he/she wants up until the first contact (crime committed)?

          I didn’t make the nose argument. I quoted someone else. Your question is misdirected. 😉

          Edited to add: Sorry if you weren’t directing that comment to me. From email, I thought it was and may have been mistaken.

        22. avatar george from fort worth says:

          i agree. a right curtailed remains a right in principle. but what is the effectiveness of a constrained right? glad you brought your argument forward. here is a great example of a right restricted, lawfully:
          Fifth Amendment privilege does not trump subpoena
          http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=152cd606-972e-43b5-8e6f-46fcda97f677

          here is a right seriously constrained.

          point is that constraints on constitutionally protected rights are manifold, negating the idea that in practice, all rights under the constitution are absolute and cannot be constrained.

        23. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If we use our handgun to prevent an attack, do we not preemptively deny the right of the attacker to do anything he/she wants up until the first contact (crime committed)?

          The moment someone threatens unlawful use of force against another, a crime has been committed. The moment someone puts another in reasonable fear of mortal danger or great bodily harm, a crime that justifies the use of deadly force in self-defense has been committed. No “contact” required.

        24. avatar John in Ohio says:

          so long as we all agree that when a person known to be a serious risk to the personal safety of others finally kills someone, none of us attack “the system” for not preventing the death.

          I would agree with that. Generally, the only time that I criticize government for “not doing something” in such cases is to point out the folly of expecting government to protect the individual at all times. I would much rather suffer the pains of too little government than the dangers of too much. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own safety and I’m fine with that.

        25. avatar george from fort worth says:

          +1

        26. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Sam I Am: My troll comment was posted April 24, 2015 at 22:44. Your comments were posted April 25, 2015 at 09:40, April 25, 2015 at 17:15, April 25, 2015 at 09:26, and April 25, 2015 at 09:34.

          ALL of your comments in this sub-thread were stamped at a date and time AFTER I made my comment. Do tell, how could my troll comment possibly be about your comments? Am I a wizard?

        27. avatar george from fort worth says:

          I recognize that many members are suspicious of “trolls” (possibly easily identified as any comment that does not indiscriminately declare the second amendment inviolate), and I was making note that if I were trolling, I would not be making entries that would guarantee turmoil just for fun.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Innocent until proven guilty, I.e. convicted. No conviction and it’s illegal for the state to believe he committed the criminal act. The state of New Jersey legally must assume he has done nothing illegal.

      1. avatar george from fort worth says:

        are we all comfortable with the stance that someone must be killed (when it could possibly be prevented) before we even consider for a moment removing a legal weapon from the mix?

        1. avatar Rambeast says:

          This concept of preventing crime by trampling rights is dug in in many people. Adjudicated (convicted in a court of law) is the only constitutional way to remove rights from an individual. It is already bad enough that there are so many victimless crimes on the register to do this that none of us can be considered “law abiding”, now you want to do it without judicial conviction.

          The slave mentality of some people never ceases to amaze me.

        2. avatar george from fort worth says:

          i trust you will personally fund college for the children of the wife zl finally is convicted of killing? and you will not do anything to interfere with the gun rights of the neighbor threatening your family until a murder is committed?

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Thought crime? This type of Orwellian thinking is the vehicle that is used to get the herd to passively accept their rights being taken away.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          George, are you currently funding the college for children of thousands upon thousands of people killed by drunk drivers and drug dealers? WTF do you think you’re putting over on us here? Your right to own a computer should be removed without any due process if you continue your mindless silliness. If it helps, you might consider that you are advocating prior restraint.

        5. avatar george from fort worth says:

          i think anyone who blows a breathalyzer test should be jailed immediately and kept there for whatever time would be adjudicated at trial ( no need for a trial if the test is conclusive). if a drunk driver seriously injures someone, that driver should be charged under the criminal code for aggravated assault, at minimum. if a drunk causes a death in an auto accident, the drunk should be charged with 2d degree murder (even drunks do not accidentally enter, start and drive off in a car). and yes, anyone who unjustifiably kills another should be financially responsible to the immediate family for the projected lifetime of the victim(s).

          and no, i do not financially support all victims of all crimes because i do not maintain that any of my civil rights trump those of others.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Huh. I never knew “Fort Worth” was in Soviet Russia.

        7. avatar george from fort worth says:

          if one fails the test, what is there to determine at trial (ok, the 1/100000 bad testers make things more difficut, but there are means to eliminate even that). how many people who failed the test were actually not guilty of BAL beyond the legal limit. why waste time at trial when there are no facts to contest? and for all those people who “beat the system”, do you want them continuing to drive drunk? if there is to be “a day in court” is should only be for determining if the test equipment was properly calibrated. trials for the sake of trials are wasteful for everyone. trials to determine facts (note, truth is not a consideration) are another thing, altogether.

          anyone who deliberately gets drunk (and there are accidental over indulgences) and then deliberately drives a car while drunk intentionally puts every other driver and pedestrian at risk of death or serious harm. why should that person be treated as if, “oh well, it’s just a drunk”. those killed or maimed by drunk drivers will never be the same. why should the drunk driver carry-on as if they are the same as someone who did not kill or maim?

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The accused has the right to due process, and to a trial, and to competent counsel to mount a defense.

          I’m not okay with circumventing any of those protections.

        9. avatar Pg2 says:

          George your ignorance of the law and on mechanical devises such as breathilizers is almost scary. Drunk driving is a problem, but high speed alone kills most. So are car manufacturers finacailly responsible for auto related deAths? They didn’t create fast cars accidently.

        10. avatar george from fort worth says:

          nope. car manufacturers, like gun manufacturers, should not be liable for misuse, gross negligence or criminal activity of someone who bought a legal product. people who are irresponsible in their behavior should not get an automatic pass just because a “gun right” is under consideration. no right is absolute, ever. why does any gun owner (or potential owner) get to legally buy a firearm if they have shown past behavior that points to inability to maintain personal control, act responsibly and show they value the right of others to not be assaulted? does my right to self-protection trump your right to not be beaten or shot with a firearm?

        11. avatar Another Robert says:

          uhhh, George–you never heard about those state troopers re-calibrating the Intoxilyzer mo-chines a few years back (nobody has used a “breathalyzer” for decades now)?? Happened right here in Texas. I myself caught DPS personnel forging signatures on documents that were then submitted into evidence at license-suspension hearings. Your call to forego a trial on a criminal accusation if “the evidence is conclusive” pretty much destroys whatever credibility you might have had.

        12. avatar george from fort worth says:

          was simply trying to make the point i have zero tolerance for anyone whose irresponsible behavior injures another. yes, anything can be warped. which is why i noted that if a trial was to be had, it should be to determine if the equipment was operating properly, not whether or not someone was guilty. if the equipment was properly operated/maintained, what is the point for further action at trial?

        13. avatar Paul G says:

          George, the opinions and beliefs you present here are exemplar of you engaging in irresponsible behavior. So when are you going to silence yourself?

        14. avatar george from fort worth says:

          curious. what is irresponsible about zero tolerance for irresponsible acts?

        15. avatar Paul G says:

          You are being irresponsible in allowing your beliefs and opinions to override the law.
          So do we take away your right to opine?

        16. avatar george from fort worth says:

          what i said was, people should not be allowed to treat intentionally harmful irresponsible acts to be seen/treated as minor mistakes/accidents/oversights. thus i would support legislation/laws that codified that stance. and if snared in my own pet laws, i would be the first to endorse their validity. is that irresponsible?

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          Yes, it is. Sometimes minor incidents are what they seem. You attempt to make sweeping generalizations devoid of facts.
          Highly irresponsible, to say the least.

        18. avatar Sam I Am says:

          treating purposeful, intentional, harmful irresponsible acts as minor inconveniences is a responsible response to those acts?

          maybe this is the place to ask, “by what authority do we prevent a convicted felon from legally obtaining a firearm?”. if there are no exceptions to “shall not be infringed”, there are no exceptions.

        19. avatar Paul G says:

          So long as you are not under guardianship of some sort, including that of tbe state, that is correct. Free men have rights.

        20. avatar Sam I Am says:

          where in the constitution is the “guardianship” exception identified? absolute rights are absolute, correct?

        21. avatar Paul G says:

          Due process.

        22. avatar george from fort worth says:

          then “due process” (whatever that means) trumps the absolute right to kaba, which means the 2A is not absolute.

        23. avatar Paul G says:

          It seems some concepts, though simple, are difficult for you to grasp
          The right is absolute.
          There are legal means to relegate free exercise of ALL rjghts to an outside authority, be it a parent, legal guardian, the state, etc…
          That does not alter the rights.
          This discussion is juvenile.

        24. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thank you for making the case that 2A rights are not absolute; they are subject to constraint.

        25. avatar Paul G says:

          I made no such case.

        26. avatar Paul G says:

          Trying to cloak yourself as holier than thou by supporting your own perversions of the law, even IF applied to you, really only underscores your own mindset. It isn’t pretty.

        27. avatar John in Ohio says:

          He seems like some real Star Chamber material. O__o

        28. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Are we all comfortable with the stance that the state can deprive you of your property even if the state agrees it has no real reason to do so?

          What evidence is there that this person is dangerous?

          If due process fails actual victims in these circumstances is that reason to abandon due process? Maybe only for these situations, but then don’t we need some sort of due process to make sure that it is the sort of situation where due process fails to remove dangerous people where it should have? If we suspend due process simply because it’s a domestic violence incident, how do we make sure we’re only doing this for domestic violence? Unleashing and expanding state power is always the greater evil. In one case you have an abusive individual damaging others in ways that everyone agrees is wrong, in the other you have legions of appointed officials damaging others in ways that people agree is right based on information filtered and selected by those appointed officials to create a public opinion that justifies the officials existence.

          Lastly, nothing I have said requires that someone die. If this person is, in fact, abusing his partner, and they do not leave, then removing the gun leaves countless weapons for murder, all of which require a closer proximity that allow the murderer to make sure their victim is dead. Remember the professional female boxer who is alive because her abuser used a gun to try and murder her and assumed the gun had done the job? If you incarcerate the abuser, then the victim will most likely seek out another person who is just as abusive and murderous. If the next partner they find is not abusive then they have had a massive stroke of luck or they were of a mind to leave the abuser before or during incarceration anyway, my sister did this after an old boyfriend hit her once, she up and walked out (sometimes abusers only find good victims through trial and error). If this person were allowed to keep their guns, we have no evidence that the very next step is death for his partner, if it were to that stage then he would have likely been convicted.

          All of this still ignores that all we seem to have in this case is an accusation. Should we deprive people of property because of an accusation, even if the accusation is of domestic violence?

          Forest for the trees.

        29. avatar Sam I Am says:

          here’s hoping you don’t know the victim who will eventually be killed by an abuser with a legally obtained firearm. i know people who failed to act, police who failed to act, courts hamstrung with more concern for the perp. i always hope they never get over the event.

        30. avatar Paul G says:

          Cry me a river. When are you going to tackle alcohol, prescription drugs, sugar, and even force all men to be castrated since we are potential rapists ( we have tbe equipment).
          Stop trying to deny people their rights and spend your efforts empowering the abused to help themselves.

        31. avatar george from fort worth says:

          why would you conclude i am not in favor of empowering abuse victims? thinking i have been reading here all the support for every actual or potential victim of violence to be armed. if we want to jump to the other side of the equation, victimhood is a seriously complicated condition. and in reality, some victims cannot ever be convinced to take any action whatsoever to protect themselves. indeed, the poor will always be with us. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage/support self-defense measures (including firearms). i just can’t come to agree that an abuser is the victim, and should be allowed to be legally armed.

        32. avatar Paul G says:

          With your false extrapolations to absurdity and penchant for reaching for unsupported conclusions about people who have been tried and acquitted, you show much about yourself. Your conclusions are contrary to the due process he received, and mark you as an abuser, him as your desired victim.
          So a lady had the police called on her while at the park,multiple times, over a period of weeks, as she regularly breast-fed her child. It seems some people did not approve of her perfectly legal behavior. Finally, a rookie cop ran her in. She was tried and acquitted. Which rights of hers would you deny her because she obviously was guilty of something? Look at all the police contacts, she has to be guilty!

        33. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Ok, you got me on this one. Have yet to read long enough to find breast-feeding a constitutionally protected absolute right. Not to mention never coming across a case where serial or multiple breast-feeding episodes led to the death or serious bodily injury of the baby. But then, it is not possible for me (at least) to know everything.

        34. avatar Paul G says:

          Poor attempt to deflect. The cases are similar, multiple police contacts to insinuate bad behavior, followed by an arrest and acquittal.
          Which rights should this non-criminal lose for being not guilty of a crime? Since you just know she is guilty, right?

        35. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Weren’t we originally talking about behavior likely to result in serious injury or death? I guess one could support the position that a person warned by police numerous time not to jaywalk (but no conviction for same) should have their right to use a sidewalk suspended until they prove capable of not jaywalking.

        36. avatar Paul G says:

          We were discussing denial of rights to a person not co victed of a crime.
          Maybe we should start making regular calls to your local police letting them know what you are doing to stray cats. It is horrifying. If they can’t find any evidence it just shows how thorough you are in your sickness.

        37. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Now that might be entertaining. But how did you know I have cats? NSA? CIA?

          actually, i have 18 alter egos on this forum/blog. more on some others.

        38. avatar Paul G says:

          Whether you have cats or not doesn’t matter.

        39. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          In short, yes sometimes strictly observing the constitutional limits on government allows bad things to happen to people, but it would be far worse to turn everyone into adult wards of the state. If we agree that the state owns us, well look at the nations that have operated on that idea. I’d rather have 30,000 murders per year than 30,000,000.

        40. avatar Sam I Am says:

          you have my respect (fwiw) for an honest response. thank you

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      You seem to be missing something.

      Either you just happened to miss the part where he was ACQUITTED of the crime, and thus proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be provided (and courts lean HEAVILY against domestic violence defendants before ever walking into the courtroom). Hence, the arrest was quite possibly BS in the first place.

      OR, you are grossly misunderstanding the various legal standards. All that is required for arrest is “probable cause.” That’s supposed to be a notch above ‘suspicion,’ but not much. And, in DV cases, again, the wording of statutes pushes hard against the true spirit of probable cause anyway.

      There is no way you can argue someone losing their rights due to arrest is within the spirit of the protections intended by the Bill of Rights. All ‘arrest’ is for is to INITIATE legal process.

      Don’t fall into the trap that everyone arrested is guilty or they would not have been arrested…ESPECIALLY in DV “cases” where often mandatory arrest based solely on accusation is statute (which has serious 4A issues).

      1. avatar george from fort worth says:

        to chop a small piece of a longer response to another commenter, “would you loan money to a person arrested multiple times for embezzlement, someone who had never been convicted? why not?”

        1. avatar Rambeast says:

          That is a private matter. You are glossing over the part where the state gets involved.

        2. avatar george from fort worth says:

          in my hypothetical i noted the state made several arrests for embezzlement, but there were no convictions. would you, based on the multiple arrests, refuse to loan such a person a serious sum of money? in both cases, the state failed to win a conviction. the root of the issue is would you give a pass to someone who poses possible a serious personal risk, but refuse to get involved in a situation where only money was at risk?

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @george from fort worth: You are trying to equate a right with something that isn’t a right. The individual has a right to keep and bear arms but does not have a right to another individual’s money.

          It you’re trolling then you are failing hard. 😀

        4. avatar george from fort worth says:

          trying to put forward the idea that no one has an absolute right to harm another just because a firearm is it at stake. no one has a right to make someone else endure the misuse of that a right. if a pattern of behavior (you name it) would cause someone to refuse to deal with the abuser, then that logic must extend to not permitting an abuser to advance their right such that another person’s right to safety is denied. none of the amendments to the hallowed constitution are sacrosanct and immune from any and all constraint under any and all conditions. and that is the law.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          trying to put forward the idea that no one has an absolute right to harm another just because a firearm is it at stake.

          Fail… Nobody is making the argument that one has an absolute right to harm another.

          no one has a right to make someone else endure the misuse of that a right.

          Fail… “Endure the misuse of that right”, what does that even mean? Given the facts in evidence to us so far, he has not misused his right to bear arms.

          if a pattern of behavior (you name it) would cause someone to refuse to deal with the abuser,

          Fail… You haven’t established this assertion. What it appears you might be stating is that if one person were to refuse to deal with you then you are a criminal and are to be stripped of your exercise of a right or rights?

          then that logic must extend

          Fail… There is a distinct absence of logic in much of what you’ve posted thus far.

          to not permitting an abuser to advance their right such that another person’s right to safety is denied.

          Fail… Nobody’s safety has been “denied”. So far, his right to bear arms has been infringed. Again, each individual is ultimately responsible for his own safety. Absent any other action on his part, his bearing of arms does not deny anyone their rights.

          none of the amendments to the hallowed constitution are sacrosanct and immune from any and all constraint under any and all conditions. and that is the law.

          Fail… Your contempt for the Constitution is apparent.
          Fail… Your arguments thus far have been contrary to even the convoluted system that we currently find ourselves under.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          if any right is absolute at all times, under all conditions, no civil or criminal law is valid. under the constitution, my conclusion that you are a threat to me (whatever the reason) allows me unfettered action to prevent injury. and if there were permitted constraints making murder contrary to the constitution, i could not be jailed because i have an absolute right to freely move about the country. this is where absolutism always leads…to the absurd.

        7. avatar Paul G says:

          It is your thought process that is absurd.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          just following absolutism where it goes.

        9. avatar Paul G says:

          False extrapolations are absurd.

        10. avatar george from fort worth says:

          Extrapolating and absolute to its logical conclusion is false? Wouldn’t your interpretation lead us to the point that an absolute is absolute, until it isn’t? Which would underscore that absolute rights do not exist.

        11. avatar Paul G says:

          Apparently you cannot or will not read well. I am certain it helps you find false absurdities.

        12. avatar george from fort worth says:

          Extrapolating and absolute to its logical conclusion is false? Wouldn’t your interpretation lead us to the point that an absolute is absolute, until it isn’t? Which would underscore that absolute rights do not exist. The entire 2A text is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, as we all know. There is not discussion in the text about due process or any other constraint. The text appears to be absolute (and is shouted about in these blogs). The argument is that the right is absolute, without any constraint at all. My proposition is that none of our rights are absolute, and we are just talking about which constraints we will (actually, we are) tolerate.

        13. avatar Paul G says:

          Untrue. You carry things to false and unsupported exfremes to create absurdities. Big difference.
          Are you just bipolar or do you suffer some extre

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Does your comment intentionally uncover a bias that someone who argues against absolutes is somehow mentally deficient? If so, it is a curious exhibition of tolerance for differences. Which just might end up in some gun-grabber blog as evidence gun owners are bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, angry and dangerous.

          Let’s hope not.

        15. avatar Paul G says:

          You are reaching. I asked about your mental state because of your vacillation between two dissimilar screen names. Surely you, the one who jumps to conclusions about others, can plainly see the evidence of your fractious mental state.
          One would think it obvious.

        16. avatar sAM i aM says:

          DID anyOne stop TO ConsiDER you R rsponding to a comptur program?

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          Make that 4 faux personalities. You really are quite the piece of work.

        18. avatar Paul G says:

          Anything can be taken out of context and misused, worrying about that is inane. You are particularly inclined to such behaviors, that is true.

        19. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Logically speaking, the argument against absolutes is self-refuting. The claim that there are no absolutes is a contradiction.

        20. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Point to you

          as i mentioned earlier

          absolutes LeaD TO absurdity

        21. avatar Paul G says:

          Untrue. You carry things to false and unsupported exfremes to create absurdities. Big difference.
          Are you just bipolar or do you suffer some extreme multiple personality disorder as evidenced plainly by your use of differing screen names?
          It is easy to jump to false conclusiions when one selectively interprets facts.
          If course, you have to ignore a lot of pertinent fact to reach the conclusions you have reached.

        22. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          To bring it back to the original story, no one is saying that the partner of this accused abuser should not leave them. We are saying that the state had no right to steal his firearms (steal is the proper term).

          If your alleged embezzler supposedly used computer to embezzle, should the state be allowed to take his computers from him if he was acquitted?

          You are confusing the reaction of other private individuals to the arrest and further action taken by the state, when the state itself has agreed that no further action is justified.

          It is not logically consistent to say that because I would not hire someone convicted multiple times of embezzling that I then must also agree that state agents should be allowed to take someones gun following an acquittal.

          Would you say that my assertion that the state should not have taken his firearm requires that I not recommend that his partner leave the relationship? That’s silly.

          The reason I maintain that the state should not have taken his gun is that it sets a precedent that the state has no obligation to prove its case before stealing your and my property, that only an accusation is sufficient.

          The constitutional limitations placed on government are not intended to protect one individual from harm by another. They are intended to protect all of us from abuses of power by those who think they know better. We are supposed to protect ourselves from abuse by others, by leaving relationships if they turn bad, by not hiring people repeatedly accused of embezzlement (or hiring them if you believe the accusations are false), and by carrying a firearm everyday.

          It is contradictory to say that one should carry a firearm for self defense and that this persons relationship to an abuser should be made safe by removing the accused abusers guns after he is acquitted.

          You either believe that due process applies to the man in this story or it doesn’t apply to you, it cannot be conditional.

        23. avatar Sam I Am says:

          what i am saying is past behavior is a fairly good predictor of future action (the actually rare episodes of ‘swatting’ do not obviate the fact zl is a bad actor, with lack of control that will probably lead to a death or maiming). all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to stand around watching.

        24. avatar Paul G says:

          Let’s assume your assertion regarding past behavior is true. You have a number of police interactions noted, one leading to an accusation in which the man was found not to be guilty. The only behavior one can judge is that his partner had a habit of frivolously calling the police, and the police got tired of coming out and arrested him, hoping to coerce the parting of ways between the people.
          You have zero actual evidence regarding the man’s behavior.

        25. avatar george from fort worth says:

          why would we conclude the pre-arrest were frivolous? could we not just as legitimately conclude the calls were reporting escalating bad behavior, then the cops finally had enough for an arrest?

        26. avatar Paul G says:

          Obviously he was not arrested, so he did nothing illegal.
          It is wrong for you to assume otherwise. I hardly think that you have some clairvoyance to see what the officers must have missed. All those responses, an arrest and an acquittal. Seems he was the victim, put through the wringer and survived.
          Maybe they should put some culpability on the one who made the baseless allegations?

        27. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree we can’t know the truth about the prior calls, just as we don’t have full information about the court appearance. Thus, we must reason from some set of assumptions. Your reasoning makes sense in that without perfect knowledge, we will probably be wrong about something. Your presentation of opinion is not invalid just because we disagree about the wisdom of letting a likely (based on my assumptions) potential killer have legal access to a handgun doesn’t make either one of us an idiot.

        28. avatar Gary McClenny says:

          We do have the information provided by the newspaper that reported that the police had been to that address 6 times with an arrest in 1998 for physical contact (striking the victim). The defendant claimed in court that it was “an accident”.

        29. avatar Sam I Am says:

          True, but we don’t have the police reports for the 5 pre-arrest visits. It would be useful to learn if the “accident” was the culmination of increasing abuse. However, not even if those visits laid-out an ever increasing risk of violence would some people give even a moment’s consideration to blocking a legal firearm purchase. which is the heart of the discord here.

        30. avatar Paul G says:

          Everyone is a “potential” killer. Gun or no gun.

        31. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Now, there’s a world-class slam !

          Good on ya’ mate.

        32. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @PaulG: Darn! That means I’m not a wizard. 😉

          your vacillation between two dissimilar screen names.

          At least he started using punctuation and capitalization with this sock puppet. It was kind of too obvious before he did. He even used identical phrases between the two. 😀

          I don’t know where you get the energy and patience, PaulG, but I’m glad you have them. You’re doing fine. Carry on.

        33. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Being a retired lawyer for scumbag criminals (and mindless wealthy because of it), I have nothing but time on my hands that allows me to do this all day or night.

        34. avatar Paul G says:

          Is that a third faux personality?

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Due process is a real bitch.

      As far as I’m aware, prior restraint is unconstitutional.

      1. avatar Avid Reader says:

        Except, you know, guns. . .

      2. avatar george from fort worth says:

        then, are we not condemned to simply standing by, waiting for zl to actually kill someone? seems so long as we/ours are not at risk, we are happy to do nothing (so long as some other luckless person pays the price)?

        these behavior patterns are difficult to address. it seems tragic that citizens have no means to prevent bad behavior from becoming criminal behavior if 2A is involved. no constitutional right is absolute, and there is no logical justification for any being so. rights without responsibility results in chaos and jungle rule. i never see the same level of vitriol related to violations of the 10th amendment or the 4th as we view on 2A blogs. while we are screaming about absolute 2A rights, we will end up disarmed via the commerce clause (the same clause that ended formal racial discrimination in the ’60s. indeed, it is puzzling that the commerce clause is not being used to prosper gay rights. the same reasoning would apply.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          then, are we not condemned to simply standing by, waiting for zl to actually kill someone?

          In a sense, yes we are except nobody should be “standing by.” People ought to be armed and able to defend themselves. With freedom comes responsibilities and risks. You can’t have it without the other two. Want to be free? Then accept your responsibilities and recognize that there are risks inherent in being free. Individuals are ultimately responsible for their own safety. It’s important that people be able to exercise their right to self defense and bearing arms is one of the ways to improve one’s chances at successfully doing so.

        2. avatar george from fort worth says:

          then are you not making the argument that no one should be able to irresponsibly execute their rights such at to put others at undue risk arising only from the irresponsible behavior (pattern) of another? i accept the risk of possible assault in my home or in a parking lot. i refuse to be forced to accept unreasonable risk of abusive behavior of my live-in when that person is near-proven to be out of control. it might not be just me at risk; it would be you also. everyone has the right to self-defense using whatever weapon they choose. no one should have a blanket, uncontrolled, unconstrained right to buy a weapon when they show a pattern of harming others.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          i refuse to be forced to accept unreasonable risk of abusive behavior of my live-in when that person is near-proven to be out of control.

          You refuse to take such risk, and yet, you stay? The risk of which you speak has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of a firearm.

          Leave. Defend yourself with a firearm. Take out a protective order. All of those options are within your power, and do not involve denying the rights of another without due process.

        4. avatar george from fort worth says:

          my live-in and i do not abuse each other. my point was/is that someone who has near-proven an inability to control themselves should not be legally facilitated in obtaining a firearm with which to most likely harm me. i just don’t believe in any unrestricted right under any constitution. i have (maybe, not sure anymore) a right to worship as i please, but do i have a right to human sacrifice as part of my rituals? if there are generally acceptable restrictions on my right to follow the tenants of my spiritual religion, there must also be generally accepted restrictions to how i pursue my religion of gun acquisition/ownership.

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          When exactly did your be!iefs replace the Constitution as the law of the land?
          I have a few beliefs of my own, some about you, that I am eager to enforce as law.

        6. avatar george from fort worth says:

          the plain fact is that all of our constitutional rights ARE restricted in one form or another. “fire in a theater” and that sort of thing. the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of property is constrained by enforcement of “imminent domain” (as actually practiced), firearms are not allowed to prisoners in jails (no 2A exception listed in the constitution). 5th amendment right against self-incrimination is trumped by the provision of transactional immunity (if given immunity and you refuse to testify, you go to jail). there is nothing in the history of the creation of the constitution that envisions rights without limit, under any and all circumstances.

        7. avatar Paul G says:

          Alll blatantly unconstitutional. Your support of such is duly noted. A quick read of the BoR will show that any exceptions to the rights enunerated were included. Start by reading the 3A, its exclusion is obvious. Funny too, the states understood that it applied to them and state militias as well. Especially since at inception standing federal armies were to be eschewed.

        8. avatar george from fort worth says:

          note: Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
          the founders wrestled greatly with this, because they understood full well that the clause could be used to subvert all the enumerated rights throughout the constitution (and eventually all the amendments). there were/are no limits on the power of congress via the commerce clause. indeed, the commerce clause was the heart of the premier civil rights case regarding “the right to refuse service to anyone”. the holding essentially ended the absolute right of persons to decide individually with whom they would commerce. the commerce clause has no “except for” wording that subordinates the clause to any other provision in the constitution.

        9. avatar Paul G says:

          The commerce clause has no bearing on this. It ia a poor legal manipulation that fooled the right people.
          Piecemeal deconstruction of the Constitution serves no one

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          oh but the clause does have something to do with this. using the clause, all our constitutionally protected rights can be legally obliterated. i am amazed the govt has not yet used the clause to prohibit interstate movement of guns and ammo. maybe they must first put more bans in place, then attack by shutting down transportation of unliked equipment. doesn’t matter if a piece of legislation violates the constitution. the legislation is law until overturned in court (LOL). there are, and will continue to be, restraints/constraints on our natural right to defense. the people who place the restraints/constraints are being “reasonable”.

        11. avatar Paul G says:

          Nope. Have you actually read the Constitution? I didn’t think so.
          Illegitimate laws, restrictions, etc are only enforceable because too many people are uninformed, apathetic, or even supportive of such unconstitutional acts. Gamble away your own rights, I will keep mine.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          thus, in reality, rights are limited/constrained. whether limits or constraints are legitimate is another matter. to force any government to allow unfettered/unrestrained exercise of rights can only be dealt with two ways, not so?

        13. avatar Paul G says:

          No, that is not so.

        14. avatar george from fort worth says:

          good point. in addition to changing the laws legally (removing all constraints), or armed insurrection, one can always just accept reality and do nothing.

        15. avatar Paul G says:

          There is no exclusion after ” shall not be infringed”. Funny how you hold government power inviolable, yet natural rights are subject to all sort of whim and opinion.

        16. avatar Sam I Am says:

          there are no free speech exclusions in the first amemdment, either. yet we most all agree with prohibiting the famous “falsely yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” (would it be ok to do that in an uncrowded theater), insofar as one can be jailed for same. would we want someone preempted from entering the theater if we knew they had a prior history of false fire claims, and that person was telling people in the ticket line what he intended to do?

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          Wrong again. That argument was refuted before the ink dried. Only the unaware keep raising it.
          You can yell “fire”, and in some cases it is a good thing. However in some instances you may be held liable for doing so, like doing so falsely.
          Similarly, the rkba does not exempt me from penalties or charges for shooting someone without reason.
          This isn’t rocket science.

        18. avatar Sam I Am says:

          then our right to kaba is constrained (like the theater example) by the law that would punish us for illegal use of arms. (2A does not prohibit arms to someone who commits a crime) and then we are denied our right to kaba in prison. if the rtkaba is absolute, i should be allowed a firearm in prison and after release. a right is absolute in all cases in all conditions, or it is not absolute.

        19. avatar Paul G says:

          Nope. The rkba does not imply a right to commit murder. Your fase assumptions are the absurd part of this discussion.
          Similarly, the unenumeratef right to own common hand tools does not imply a right to put people’s eyes out with screwdrivers or bash heads in with hammers.
          Your extrapolations are exercises in absurdity.

        20. avatar george from fort worth says:

          you are arguing my point. if rights are absolute, they are absolute with no exception. otherwise, one is left saying, “rights are absolute, if…..” and once you declare “if”, we are no longer talking about absolutes, but which exceptions we like.

        21. avatar Paul G says:

          A prisoner is a ward of the state. The state, as legal guardian, determines his rights.
          Once his sentence is completed, indeed he should be allowed all of his rights.

        22. avatar george from fort worth says:

          where in 2A is the exception from absolute that pertains to “wards of the state”? we may agree it is prudent that “wards of the state” not be allowed weapons, but if 2A is absolute it is absolute, all the time. once we get to “if” or “except” then we are just squabbling over which “if” or “except” we like.

        23. avatar Paul G says:

          There is more than one enumerated right in tbe Bill of Rights. The 2A has no exceptions noted as part of its enumeration.
          Simple. Now go read the rest of the BoR.

        24. avatar Sam I Am says:

          My point exactly. Absolute means no constraint, no how, no way, no time.

          Yet we all know that is never true regards constitutionally protected rights.

        25. avatar Paul G says:

          I was initially under the impression that you were playing stupid, but you convinced me otherwise.

        26. avatar Paul G says:

          You keep reformulating to try and justify prior restraint. It is not justified. In your example, if he was telling people in line his intention, nobody would be alarmed at his shouts. Problem solved!

        27. avatar John in Ohio says:

          By the way, he could easily commit criminal violence against another using another tool, even his fists. By depriving him of his right to bear arms, you don’t prevent him from acting in a criminally violent way in the future. Heck, you don’t even prevent him from keeping and bearing arms at some point. 😉

        28. avatar george from fort worth says:

          true. but does facilitating the legal acquisition of a firearm further improve or degrade the likelihood that weapon will be used in domestic violence? any object could be used, indeed. if driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol are bad things, do we improve or degrade the public safety by permitting the legal sale of cannabis? don’t know of any cases of smokers of traditional tobacco being arrested for DUI or impaired operation of a motor vehicle, but cannabis lovers do get so mellow they don’t have interest in careful driving. btw, why does a conviction justify removing the natural right of a person to keep and bear arms? don’t see that exception in the constitution, anywhere.

        29. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …but does facilitating the legal acquisition of a firearm further improve or degrade the likelihood that weapon will be used in domestic violence? any object could be used, indeed…

          If sufficient evidence exists to constitute probable cause that someone will act violently toward another, then that evidence would be sufficient to obtain a protective order – which would then preclude that person from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

          By the way, I’ve heard your argument before. Oh, yeah:

        30. avatar george from fort worth says:

          yes, a restraining order would be a useful tool. unfortunately, i worked at an abuse shelter and saw first-hand those so poor in spirit they could not take any other than to run (which, happily, they did).

        31. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “then, are we not condemned to simply standing by, waiting for zl to actually kill someone?”

          The truly disgusting thing about you repeating this over and over is that you actually believe that just because zl was ACCUSED of something, that means he IS dangerous.

          THIS is exactly why we have due process…so the State cannot act to take away rights on the basis of accusations.

          I’ve worked in LE and I’ve seen first hand the total BS that is modern DV law (at least in the state I worked). I’ve seen false accusations and the results of ‘mandatory arrest’ statutes. I’ve seen women game the system for ungodly, evil reasons.

          You are twisting logic to fit something that simply can NOT exist in a free society – a presumption of guilt on the basis of mere allegation.

          No one is advocating waiting until someone is murdered. But, in this case, what do we have? Police called 5 times…with insufficient EVIDENCE to support even “probable cause” for arrest, and one time where PC existed but PROOF to “Reasonable Doubt” did not?

          That’s not a lot of stick-em to hang your “zl is a bad guy and we must protect society from him” on. One could rationally argue that he was put into, and tested by the ‘system’ and found NOT to be the danger you are making him out to be.

          As stated above, your ENTIRE thesis is one huge straw man.

        32. avatar george from fort worth says:

          five trips before a judge (or just 5 trips thru any portion of the legal system) is not enough to give one pause when considering whether it is prudent to allow a person to legally purchase a firearm?

          the underlying theme today is that 2A rights trump all others, trump common sense, trump prudence, trump the general welfare. as a member of LE, you were required to enforce curtailment of many rights because a statute existed to that effect. i am pointing out that blind rage demanding an absolute, un-curtailable right to a firearm is not necessarily promoting the reasonable right to not be assaulted by another right. indeed, if “not infringed” has meaning, then only “logic”, or “public safety” or some other extra-constitutional consideration can justify denying people in prison TRTKABA. if a right is absolute, it is absolute.

        33. avatar Paul G says:

          Behavior patterns? OK. So a person has a pattern of driving to the bar on Monday nights during football season, watching the game with friends, and having a couple beers. This should be sufficient reason to suspend his driver’s license, the pattern points to an inevitable DUI and possible injury or death to innocent bystanders.

        34. avatar george from fort worth says:

          if the person you describe was stopped (there would be a record) 5 or so times, but let go with a warning, then someone should review the history and maybe attach a restriction on their driving. how many warnings would be sufficient to take someone off the street before they kill someone. btw, in the 80s i lived in colorado. it was not illegal to drive without a license. if one had their license lifted for DUI, they could not be charged with driving without a license on the day they killed 5 pedestrians (actually happened), and could not be charged in those days with anything but DUI. there was no limit to the number of DUI citations or deadly accidents one could accumulate and still be immune to criminal charges. that changed in the 90s (yes, a privilege is not a right, but finally action was taken to take these miscreants off the streets.

        35. avatar Paul G says:

          Stopped, breathalyzed, found well within the law, and let go….that should be suffficent to suspend, akin to the topic.
          You are waffling….the illogic of your “beliefs” is showing.
          No constitution gives us rights, it recognizes the existence of rights, some are enumerated.

        36. avatar george from fort worth says:

          did not know there was any (much less high) probability that a single drive would be stopped 5 times in a lifetime for suspicion of DUI, much less 5 times in a short period. my perception is skewed in that having lived in 7 different states over 40 years i have never been stopped for suspicion of DUI. for my example i was thinking of a person pretty much living in the same general metro area for years.

        37. avatar Paul G says:

          Some states use checkpoints, some cops target certain bars, cars, or people.
          Again your beliefs square poorly with facts.

        38. avatar george from fort worth says:

          may i presume you are satisfied that in criminal matters, past bad acts of an accused cannot be used in any fashion to disadvantage the accused?

        39. avatar Paul G says:

          You are so busy presuming you never bother to examine the reality of the laws you are butchering with your beliefs.

        40. avatar george from fort worth says:

          i am impressed today by how long it took this forum to descend into ad hominem attacks. thanks to everyone for holding off so long. unfortunately, it did not take long at all before the tone defaulted to absolutism with accompanying sloganeering.

        41. avatar Paul2 G says:

          I don’t see any ad hominem. The page is rife with exposures of your presumptions, and butchering of the Constitution and extant laws.
          Perhaps you presumed that a statemenf of fact was an ad hominem?
          You presume a lot.

    5. avatar SteveInCO says:

      @george from fort Worth: Fortunately, you aren’t running the court system. Of course, in New Jersey, no one would be able to tell the difference

      1. avatar george from fort worth says:

        lol. +1

  15. avatar Ben L says:

    The article is incorrect in one regard, it says that a permit is more rare than an empty seat at the Super Bowl, I am pretty sure the author is confusing a pistol permit with a carry permit. You can easily get a pistol permit that allows you to purchase a permit. Getting a permit to carry that pistol is almost as rare as that empty Super Bowl seat.

  16. avatar KCK says:

    How is this different than a May Issue state. The chief LE denies you by the way you smell. What have you been convicted of? If you can be denied for no reason what’s wrong with a bad reason.
    I know we are talking about ownership in the home and not just carry in this case but man, that woman must have been a real bitch to lie so many times when the cops were called.
    Was there no evidence in his case or not enough to convict but enough to get a sense that this guy made a bed to lie in.
    Just sayn’

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    I was under the impression that American citizens have a right to due process and are innocent until proven guilty

    He had due process — lots of it. Due process means a lot of things, not just a trial by jury.

    Innocent until proven guilty is a matter of criminal law and justice. It means that the burden of proof in a criminal case rests on the prosecution.

    This is not a criminal case.

    In this case, ZL was disbarred because of the claim that he committed domestic violence. Of course, to convict him of domestic violence would require a trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    But to deny his gun rights — no jail sentence involved, no fines imposed, no criminal record attaching — required a lower level of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which only applies to crimes.

    I disagree with the outcome, and with the methodology employed. To me, the permanent denial of a Constitutional right is criminal in nature and should require a trial by jury. However, at this time there is little judicial support for my position.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      However, at this time there is little judicial support for my position.

      And yet, your position has constitutional support, in spades.

      We are no longer a constitutional republic. We are ruled by non-elected tyrants in black robes, who ignore the plain meaning of the constitution in order to legislate from the bench.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        Wasn’t Thomas Jefferson going on about that very thing during and/or after Marbury v. Madison?

        http://constitutionality.us/MarburyvMadison.html

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        @Chip Bennett, it’s unfair to put most of the blame on the judge in this case or judges in general. We owe Heller, McDonald, Moore v. Madigan and other pro-gun rights cases to judges.

        In the case of Moore v. Madigan, Judge Posner wrote a very pro-2A opinion, even though he is an anti-2A guy (he really hates it) and has strongly criticized the Heller case. Posner is a good judge because he followed the law even though he doesn’t like it or agree with it.

        If the legislatures would do their jobs correctly, most judges would follow along whether they like it or not. That’s the essence of not legislating from the bench.

        In this case, New Jersey’s legislature (and chief executive) have chosen to trash human rights, and the judge in this case went along. His share of the guilt, were we to apportion it, would be less than the goons who made the law in the first place.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          +1 on that. And actually, it was a three-judge panel, no? We are always saying the judges are to interpret law, not make it. Constitutional issues are fair game at the appellate level, but do we know that 2A was even argued?

    2. avatar Paul2 G says:

      No free man shall be debarred use of arms.
      You pervert due process.

  18. avatar Cinnamon Joe says:

    The effect the acquittal should have is an interesting question. Put aside a jury’s ability to ignore — or discount — the evidence and acquit someone for reasons outside the charges — it happens, more often than one would think. Still, although we want proof beyond a reasonable doubt before we offer a citizen to the State for punishment, do we want that much proof for every other purpose?

    One answer could be that when the “other purpose” impacts someone’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the answer is certainly, yes. The problem I have with that answer, however, is that every legal consequence impacts someone’s exercise of a constitutional right. A protective order impacts someone’s constitutional rights to free association, expression, and to travel, but we don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for protective orders. Civil judgments impact someone’s constitutional rights to raise a family, own property, conduct business, etc. But we don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to change custody, impose million-dollar judgments, etc.

    The linked story shows that ZL admitted to hitting his wife, but claimed it happened on accident. Suppose he had admitted to shooting his wife, but claimed it happened on accident. Same problem. Is there nothing in the situation that might give legitimate pause to a licensing authority?

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Is there nothing in the situation that might give legitimate pause to a licensing authority?

      Your premise is faulty. Where is the constitutional authority for the State of New Jersey to establish a “licensing authority” over the exercise of a natural right that is explicitly, constitutionally protected from infringement?

      1. avatar Cinnamon Joe says:

        I guess it’s the same authority that determines whether people can vote. Or the authority to determine whether speech can be punished. Both of them are explicitly-guaranteed rights, subject to control and punishment. Maybe I was unclear saying “license” — I don’t mean that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right, but a permission licensed by the government. But recognizing a right doesn’t remove the authority to ensure the right is not abused, and that authority is what’s operating in this story, for good or ill.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I guess it’s the same authority that determines whether people can vote. Or the authority to determine whether speech can be punished. Both of them are explicitly-guaranteed rights, subject to control and punishment.

          The act of voting is an explicitly guaranteed right? Implicit, yes. But not explicit.

          And punishment for speech is a matter of dealing with speech already expressed. Prior restraint on speech is unconstitutional. In order for the state to regulate speech through punishment, the speech must first be expressed. There is no “licensing authority” for speech.

          There is absolutely no reason that the rights protected by the second amendment should be treated any differently. There is no reason to deny to a law-abiding person preemptively the right to keep and bear arms. The state should only regulate through punishment the misuse or unlawful exercise of that right.

  19. avatar MarkPA says:

    On first impression this looks like it MIGHT be an interesting case. Heller and McDonald have been read by lower courts to admitting exclusively to the right to KEEP arms in the home. So far, SCOTUS has declined to take a case that would address – directly – the right to BEAR arms outside the home.
    Looks like this NJ case involves a pistol purchase permit. If there is a right to KEEP in the home then there must be a right to PURCHASE or otherwise acquire.
    Readers not intimate with NJ laws need to understand the finer points of NJ law. If you do not have a NJ “Carry” Permit it is flat-out-ILLEGAL for you to possess a handgun. Except for armored-car drivers, no ordinary person can get a NJ Carry Permit; therefore, for all practical purposes, possessing a handgun in NJ is flat-out-ILEGAL. Seems draconian, doesn’t it; you understand.
    Yet, we know that some ordinary NJ residents do have handguns. So, some further explanation is required. In NJ we live under a sward of Damocles where we are guilty of possessing a handgun until we prove to the satisfaction of a jury that our possession falls under one or another of a few narrow exceptions. One enjoys the grace of being found not-guilty if possession is: in-the-home; in transport to/from a range without unnecessary deviations; or, at a business place. So, for example, if a adult son/daughter with his/her own home is found in a parent’s home with the parent’s handgun the jury might find that the “home” exemption does not apply. If one is found buying gasoline on the way to/from the range, the jury might find the “unnecessary deviation” rule removes the exemption.
    ZL is being denied the right to a gun in his home (in violation of Heller/McDonald) because he can’t buy a handgun. The avenue of attack may be to get SCOTUS to strike-down NJ’s “possession without ‘Carry’ Permit” unconstitutional. I.e., he may be able to boot-strap the law requiring a pistol-purchase permit to the possession law – putting the possession law in Constitutional jeopardy.
    SCOTUS ought to take a dim view of NJ’s possession law. I.e., that possession anywhere without a “Carry” Permit is flat-out-illegal, subject to the grace of a jury that the fact circumstances fall within narrow exemptions. SCOTUS could issue another very narrow ruling – NEVER mentioning the circumstances of carry-outside-the-home – to knock-down NJ’s handgun law. This is something SCOTUS might be willing to do.
    My guess is that SCOTUS wishes to avoid any ruling whatsoever on the right to BEAR arms. SCOTUS would much prefer that the Circuit courts establish a record of case law that they might be willing to ratify. Alternatively, SCOTUS would much prefer that the States adopt Shall-Issue laws that the People are willing to settle for.
    Even so, SCOTUS might be growing frustrated that the Circuit courts and State legislatures are not reading the dicta of Heller/McDonald. That frustration might lead them to take the odd case here and there which will nudge the Circuit courts into reading the handwriting on the wall and Constitutionalizing a Right-to-Carry via something like Shall-Issue (at least).

  20. avatar Frank W says:

    Presumption of a possible future illegal act is not, nor has ever been a basis for a prohibition against an individual, and yes, like it or not an actual crime has to be committed for someone to lose their rights.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Of course, the courts have found ways to carve out prior restraint as being unconstitutional for first amendment-protected rights, yet constitutional for second amendment-protected rights:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/21/the-first-amendment-guide-to-the-second-amendment/

      Of course, the courts are obviously wrong. Like they usually are.

    2. avatar KCK says:

      A denial in a May issue State/County with out a crime seems to abrogate a right.
      That is not a weird exception that brings about an article every day in the L.A. Times

  21. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I understand that there are some states where you can be denied the right to own a gun due to misdemeanor domestic violence. These arguments dance around that concept, too. If you can be denied due to one misdemeanor, you can be denied due to others. Misdemeanor shoplifting 30 years ago? You’re toast. The excuse supposedly was that some minor “domestic violence” in quotes (Like you yelled at your daughter for coming home late) was downgraded to a misdemeanor, OMG, we must DO something. Why not change it back to a felony? Because that would not get the camel’s nose into the tent of cancelling gun rights due to misdemeanors.

  22. avatar SurfGW says:

    George from Ft Worth is right. The man has been arrested multiple times which shows a pattern of dangerous conduct. The fact that he has not been convicted only shows that he had a good lawyer or knows how to work the system. Using common sense, if a judge allowed ZL to own a weapon (which only the judge can do), any violence he commits would be on the judge’s conscience and potentially open him up to cries for recall. Why would any sane judge jeopardize their career?

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      “…shall not be infringed unless it jeopardizes a judge’s career“?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Apparently some seem to think so. The statism is strong in some of these comments today. Yikes!

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “The man has been arrested multiple times which shows a pattern of dangerous conduct.”

      By the accuser, you mean? How do YOU know the difference? Just because someone called the cops on him multiple times does NOT mean he is dangerous at all.

      ARREST means next to nothing in terms of guilt in DV cases. Put the Kool Aid down.

      “The fact that he has not been convicted only shows that he had a good lawyer or knows how to work the system.”

      You obviously have never been in court on a DV case. The court system is so thoroughly stacked against the accused these days it makes your statement and absolute joke.

      I’ve been in court a lot. In big, high profile cases, there might be some gaming going on. In big CIVIL cases, there might be some gaming going on. I don’t think the reality of court, especially in DV cases, is what you think it is and I’m basing MY observation on reality, not TV and movies and the HuPo.

      “Using common sense, “

      Why should you tell us to use common sense when there’s none in your statement?

      To wit:

      “if a judge allowed ZL to own a weapon”

      First, a judge does not “allow” ZL to own a weapon. If ZL wants one, he’ll get one. That he tried through legal means is at least suggestive that he MIGHT just not be the ‘bad guy’ you are trying to make him out to be.

      Second, where would be the common sense of the judge allowing ZL freedom if he was such a threat to his accuser? The judge had him in his court room … charged, arraigned and ready for jail or prison….then just ‘let him go?’ Right.

      You say the lawyer gamed the system on the one hand, then claim it would not be common sense for the judge to ‘allow’ him a weapon all the while ignoring that he either (a) committed the crime or not and (b) is a threat or not.

      “any violence he commits would be on the judge’s conscience and potentially open him up to cries for recall. Why would any sane judge jeopardize their career?”

      Why is that statement any different if he used his fists or a knife or a baseball bat?

      If the judge let him go in the face of evidence of his dangerousness, shouldn’t the judge be on the hook no matter what, if any weapon he uses in a subsequent attack?

      In other words…how is what you say somehow proof of his being too dangerous for a gun but not, say a knife, ball bat or CAR?

      Your logic is laughable…utterly, and totally laughable, and for you to urge a call for “common sense” with such illogic makes it doubly so.

  23. avatar Steve says:

    I really couldn’t care less about what happens to people in MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, MD, IL, CA, OR, or HI.

    They choose to live in those places, and those places aren’t America because in America you have gun rights.

    For the record, I really don’t care what happens to people in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, or Australia.

    1. avatar Martin says:

      Are you really this short-sigted or are you trolling?

      FYI, I do live in a European country and we do have shall-issue laws and school carry is legal here. Yeah, I’d like to see some of the restrictions removed, but we’re doing better than many US states. Does that make us more American than NY?

    2. avatar Pg2 says:

      Steve, I’ll assume your post was serious and not trolling, so you believe that keeping your head in the sand is the best way to deal with reality?

    3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      I also wonder why they keep voting for the same people. I use to live in California. Not any more. It has become a slave state and the American south has become the land of free people with firearms.

  24. avatar Gary McClenny says:

    DV is a tough one. I spent 5 years as a LEO in the DFW metroplex. Neighbor calls in a dispute next door. We show up and hear yelling and crying. Knock on the door. Wife/girlfriend opens door with tears in here blackened eyes. Says we are just having a disagreement. I don’t want to press charges. It went on like that for years until we got a new law that required LEOs to make an arrest based upon judgement of who the antagonist was. No longer needed the other party to press charges. Many abuse victims are afraid to press charges due to fear of retaliation and/or fear of a lack of support. Many do not have the education needed to get. Well paying job in order to support their children and “bubba”ain’t gonna do it from prison! This is a serious issue. In some states, you cannot get s conviction without the victim as a witness and witnesses often refuse. Therefore, the scumbag gets away with it over and over again and the police and courts have their hands tied. Call it what you will, but if you have ever been a part of it and been there “up close and personal” then you are an armchair quarterback with no knowledge of the situation. It is not an easy situation. I support the constitution 100%, but I can understand this situation as I see it. This is a guy known for violence but could not get convicted due to circumstances. Does that make him less of a criminal? I think not and the chief LEO knows that as well. If this had been a one time occurrence or the “victim” was shown to be making up stories, I would feel differently. Does not seem to be the case here. I certainly would not want my firearms confiscated from some random claim, but I don’t see that here. Six times of violence indicates s pattern here. Tough decision. In Texas, this guy would have served jail time and would have been convicted. Not every state has that ability. Let’s find a more cut and dried case that favors our side and not come out quite so strong in support of a known violent offender. I rest my case.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      This is a guy known for violence but could not get convicted due to circumstances. Does that make him less of a criminal?

      Under the system of law in our constitutional republic, yeah, he’s not a criminal by definition in that circumstance. Duh. Five years as a DFW cop and you seriously don’t know that?!?!

      1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

        There was a time in Texas when it was virtually impossible to get a conviction for DV because the victim would not testify. That was remedied. Now, the LEO is the witness. Some states still operate under the old system. Until you have participated in the process at the street level, you really are just an armchair quarterback.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Until you have participated in the process at the street level,”

          Okay, I’ll play along. I’ve participated in the process at the “street level,” and I find the notion of “he must be guilty because the cops were called” pretty disgusting.

          SJW’s seem to have won some points on the DV front…hey, let’s just start crucifying men in public on the off chance that they might some day commit a crime.

          Does that satisfy? It is, after all, consistent with the belief that the factually supported truth of any GIVEN case does not matter since we MUST go by the seriousness of the accusation?

          One final note regarding something they seemed to have left out of your cop schooling: the facts of zl’s case do not depend on some set of statistics derived from other cases. It simply does not matter what happens in 50,. 60, 80 or even 90+ percent of other DV situations.

          The only relevant thing to zl’s case were the facts pertaining to that arrest. And, the court seems to have determined he was “Not Guilty.”

          In word, then, what you saw “on the street” is kind of irrelevant. Your tirade does sound like a good SJW rant, though…complete with collectivist thinking.

        2. avatar Gary McClenny says:

          Well JR, not sure what you mean by SJW. Also, the only tirade appears to be the one by you. It appears that your street level experience was on the wrong end of the law, hence your hatred toward law enforcement. I never provided statistics—you made that up. You need to go back and reread all of my comments. Your individual case of domestic abuse is a separate matter. You are letting your personal experience cloud your judgement. If your entire argument is one of hatred then you have no argument.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Until you have participated in the process at the street level, you really are just an armchair quarterback.

          Baloney. I’ve been the recipient of domestic violence, been falsely accused of it, helped more than a few people defend against it in court, have a somewhat close relationship with some law enforcement (and at least one of them have been falsely accused in the past), my former wife was a fireman, friends are EMTs, had a career in medicine, and have friends who are prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. None of that means anything because someone isn’t a criminal under the law until conviction. It doesn’t take experience to know that basic fact. I hope you aren’t still an officer of the law with that bias.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      Cop or no cop you don’t know what would have happened at trial in Texas because you haven’t heard any of the evidence. None. And BTW, IIRC it wasn’t that he was arrested 5 times, it was that the cops had been called to his house 5 times and he was arrested once. We lived across the street from a couple, the cops were called out to their house several times in the couple of years they lived there. But apparently no one had actually laid hands on anyone any of those times.

      1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

        Merely pointing out what many overlook.

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” Let’s find a more cut and dried case that favors our side and not come out quite so strong in support of a known violent offender.”

      Oh, now that’s a HOOT. A “known” violent offender, eh?

      Got some evidence for that? You know, those pesky little FACTS that can be introduced in court?

      He WENT to court, for crying out loud. He was ACQUITTED. What does that tell you? Or, to be fair, what does that at least SUGGEST to you?

      Could be even REMOTELY possible that you are wrong and that he was, in fact, NOT GUILTY?

      Not even REMOTELY possible?

      See, here’s a big part of the problem with modern LE. Too many cops think they have ALL the answers and can somehow divine things mere mortals can’t. Too many cops think that just the government solution initiated by ‘cop’ is the One True Way.

      In all your time “on the street,” you never, you NEVER, saw an accuser lie about any assault in general or domestic assault in particular? You NEVER saw a woman falsely report a rape?

      If you say that, I’ll know you are full of it.

      ” I rest my case.”

      What does THAT mean…you’ve declared something so the rest of us should just shut up? Or, does it mean that you think you’ve proven something with some of weakest, irrelevant nonsense you could possibly post on the topic?

      1. avatar Gary McClenny says:

        JR, you seem to have a great disdain for law enforcement and are allowing that to cloud your judgement. I have merely pointed out that not one of us has all of the information available to us to claim an absolute case. Resting my case is simply stating that I gave given my argument to the extent that I am able under the circumstances given. You are correct on many points but also overlook the obvious—bad people do sometimes get away with murder, or in this case, domestic abuse. True enough, I have seen fabricated stories of abuse but I have seen far more cases of victims who never saw justice. It is not about fair; it is about justice. And justice is not always fair. I am first to declare unrighteousness by anyone, especially those who are sworn to uphold the law. My two brothers are currently in law enforcement, one with DPD for 28 years and the other with FWPD for 18 years. Among us we have seen quite a bit of recklessness on both sides. In Texas, we are about to get a new law that will strip a person of their gun rights on the simple accusation of abuse. I oppose that law. I have simply pointed out what many may have overlooked. There are 3 sides to every story—his, hers, and the truth. An acquittal does not mean a person is innocent; it means a conviction was not meted out for whatever reason. Lack of a complainant in court is just one example. I am not saying the man is guilty but I certainly will not say he is innocent. Do I agree with police having jurisdiction over the right to keep and bear arms? Absolutely not! But, in the People’s Republic of NJ, that is the law. Until enough people rise up against that totalitarian form of government, they will gave to live with it.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “JR, you seem to have a great disdain for law enforcement and are allowing that to cloud your judgement. “

          No, sir, not at all.

          I have great disdain for the spreading of illogical nonsense and falsehood.

          You declared him guilty, or a “known violent offender” was the phrase used, and now are trying to hide behind “we don’t know all the facts.”

          The problem that exists is that the issue of him being denied a Right without conviction is very important….to all of us in fact or potentially. Technically, being acquitted in court, he has been found to be precisely NOT a “known violent offender,” and that should matter.

          Talking about what might or might have happened in other DV cases is a distraction from that basic point.

        2. avatar Gary McClenny says:

          John, both you and JR are reading WAY too much into what was written. You are letting your personal bias affect how you interpret what I wrote. Simply said, there are 3 sides to every story. Neither you nor I know all the details. Even if we read the police reports (reports do exist) we would still not have all the details. It is pure speculation as to the truth behind the story. Lots of men get falsely accused but lots of people get abused and the abuser gets away with it. A restraining order is just a piece of paper enforceable by the courts, not by the local police. A victim can be dead before the ink dries. It is a huge issue and we will not be the ones to solve it but it is interesting to discuss.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          No, just reading what was actually written. If you didn’t mean what we are responding to, you shouldn’t defend it…A simple, “oops, I was wrong in how I worded that” would suffice.

          Several times now you’ve been ‘called out’ for your written nonsense then tried to back peddle on it.

          Logic matters; facts matter. This is not salon.com where someone can post horse biscuits and hope that through their Appeal To Authority (“I was a cop”) everyone accepts it.

        4. avatar Gary McClenny says:

          JR, you are trying to take this way beyond where it began, and that is the fact (no logic required), that domestic violence is a real issue and that it is not always treated fairly. My original point was and is that there are many cases in which an abuser has his day in court and literally gets away with murder (or DV). This happens a lot because our system is one that requires that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. If the witness fails to testify, often the case is dismissed and a not guilty verdict is rendered. That does not mean that a crime did not occur or that the defendant is not guilty; it just means a guilty verdict could not be reached. Now, the police gave those records, all of them. In NJ, the chief LEO has power to grant or deny a permit to own firearms. Constitution notwithstanding, that is the law until it is changed. Neither you nor I have the power to change it no matter how strongly we dislike it. Therefore, the chief LEO has the authority granted him by statute to deny the permit based upon his findings. You and I might read those reports and come to a different conclusion, but have not been afforded that opportunity because we cannot see those reports. If I read them, I might call bogus. Again, I might affirm the call to prosecute. My point from the beginning was to slow down the thought process so that some might actually think about something they have not previously considered. Two things that I have a great deal of experience with are fatal auto accidents involving drunk drivers and domestic violence cases. I have responded to well over a hundred calls. Some, as you rightly claim, are bogus. Some involved the female attacking and injuring the male (embarrassing for sure). Many involved a male who had to much to drink (sometimes both parties), and some were truly brutal. It was not uncommon for us to begin the arrest process after determining whom to arrest only to be attacked by the other party because we were taking her bread and butter to jail! DV cases are among the most dangerous calls—our city policy required two officers at those calls. We always had to write a report. That report is not part of the public domain. It included eyewitness accounts by two officers, sometimes by the neighbors, sometimes we had photos of the scene and the victim. In the end, most abusers got off because the victim would not testify and the would get back together. Those five years changed the way I look at things. Am I biased? Of course I am, just as the 7 years I spent in the US Army during the Vietnam war gave me a certain bias. Just as your life experiences have given you bias. That does not make either one of us more right than the other. If this country were run strictly under the constitution, things would be different, but it is not. It is a nation of laws and NJ law does subvert the constitution, but it is the law and those who choose to live in that commie state are under its authority. ZL or whatever his name is has chosen to remain there—his choice. We do not know what his behavior or attitudes have been in the 18 years since the DV case, but the state does. They track every complaint and every traffic ticket. Demeanor, attitude and words spoken are all recorded and filed in case they are needed later. The LEO has access to all of that information and made the decision based on that data. Whether you and I agree or disagree is irrelevant. We have no authority there.

  25. avatar Roy says:

    I can’t find the links right now, but I saw some statistics last week that 40% of rape claims are unfounded where 27% recant their rape allegation, 55% of divorces involve allegations of domestic violence, and over 70% of those claims are unfounded. There’s a lot of crazy ass people out there that just make stuff up for attention.

    According to a 2000 Census survey there were 5x more people claiming to serve in Vietnam than there actually were Vietnam vets, meaning that for out of 5 people that tell you they’re a veteran, only 1 actually is. Crazy folks out there people.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      There was a time when almost no rape allegations were contrived, and true allegations were sometimes not believed. Now, many allegations are false, and we are told to believe all of them. The Duke and Virginia cases are illustrative. Yes, the times they are a-changing. Just not for the best.

    2. avatar Gary McClenny says:

      Stolen valor is not new, but I do have a DD 214.

  26. avatar Fed Up says:

    Who among us does NOT have ‘the potential for violent reaction’, maybe the toothless quadriplegics???

  27. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The push for utopia will leave us all without rights but being cared for by our overlords.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      I blame the feminist movement. They were never for gun civil rights. They were for the end of the traditional family with the government replacing the father. Now the “government” is the protector. The mother/girlfriend has no gun thanks to feminist but they do get a nice welfare check. The only pro gun feminist is Tammy Bruce.

  28. avatar ghost says:

    “The Government”, not your government, has shown an increasing hated of individual rights. Punish all for the insane acts of a few. Make everyone a potential victim. When was the last time you have heard of someone defending The Constitution Of The United States Of America?

  29. avatar John says:

    I have to laugh every time I see one of these posts. If I didn’t laugh I would cry.
    Have any of you actually done anything to stop this and support or defend the constitution?
    So many like to quote the second amendment, but they always leave out the “Well regulated militia” part. Isn’t the militia every able bodied American citizen?
    Isn’t it every American’s duty to support and defend the Constitution?
    So why do so many of you buy your guns from companies like Glock who sell weapons to enemies of the Constitution like NJ, NY and CA?

  30. avatar george from fort worth says:

    hhmmmm, positing thoughts or arguments that do not rabidly endorse the idea that 2A rights are absolute is a time waster? is that what this forum is all about?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email