Previous Post
Next Post

You gotta give radaronline credit for staying on top of the Mel Gibson – Oksana Grigorieva story. ‘Cause if you don’t their lawyers will come down on you like a Mel Gibson character avenging his family. The gossip site spills the beans about the brawl allegations making the rounds. We pick up the story when “Oksana finally was freed from Mel’s grip and jumped up to leave but she says Mel then pulled a gun from the pocket of his short [sic], pointed it at her head and threatened to kill her, Lucia and Sascha, as well as himself, in an apparent murder-suicide plot.” Not so much of a plot as a man with severe anger issues gone wild. And so a judge has confiscated Gibson’s guns. This has not gone down well with some folks, as you might imagine . . .

Over at, columnist Kevin McCollough reckons Mel’s been framed, and the judge has no right to take his guns until he’s proven guilty of something in a court of law.

The judge is basing his entire case on confiscating Gibson’s guns on the hearsay of a woman who is seeking to hurt Gibson very publicly at this time. Two top forensic experts pointed out this week that she has been dishonest already in how she has leaked information to the public to hurt Gibson.

It is an illegitimate, and unconstitutional demand to force Gibson to get rid of his guns, and the judge knows it.

But if the judiciary in this nation truly cared about weapons and intimidation, a host of prosecutors would be indicting members of the Justice Department for racist policies by continuing to allow intimidation by violent groups, i.e. the New Black Panthers (the mirror image of the Ku Klux Klan), to threaten “to kill crackers.”

NOTE: This was written before today’s accusation of Mel’s murder – suicide “plot.” Also for the record, here’s the federal law that enabled the confiscation of Mel’s weapons.

U.S. code Title 18 Section 922, Section (g) states that it is unlawful for anyone to “possess any firearm or ammunition . . .

(8) who is subject to a court order that –
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or
threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such
intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that
would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily
injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury;

Needless to say, the battle lines are drawn in the usual places. Here’s a comment arguing against confiscation from western bondbeam:

Why stop at the guns? What about Mel’s steak knives? His ax or chainsaw? I heard Mel has a collection of baseball bats and vintage golf clubs….take them away as well. Almost forgot….rope. Take away any shoelaces Mel might have in his home in case he decides to manufacture a weapon out of them to kill his ex-lady. Rocks in the landscapiing….Mel shouldn’t be anywhere near stones…he might throw them at her. What about a pillow to hold over her face? I am pretty sure the judge missed a few weapons to remove from Mel’s possession.

And here’s one from the what are you nuts side of the debate from twomay:

Old Carpenter, did you HEAR the tape?? No matter what was edited out, no matter what she might have said, he is a total basketcase and sounds like he’s on the verge of murdering someone. In fact he DOES explicitly threaten to murder her at several points. Sorry, nice try, but there is no explaining that away.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’ m always at a loss to understand the thinking of those who think we would have a safer society if guns were not available to non-criminals. as criminals will always have guns no matter what the current laws are, BUT, this situation is quite different! As in the case of deferring to the actual commission of a crime by a stalker, why would it not be prudent to remove instruments of quick and INSTANT death from one who has demonstrated intent? We all know that anyone can use a car to kill someone but as a society we are not going to eliminate vehicles just because they COULD be used in the commission of a crime; likewise, kitchen knives will not disappear from the marketplace. However, guns have the ability to kill MANY quickly, without intimate contact! It is ludicrous to label a baseball bat as an equivalent weapon; may we have a modicum of sensibility here, and put our immediate reactions aside and let logic prevail? When will we ever evolve from a knee-jerk society?! PLEASE!!

Comments are closed.