misdemeanor domestic violence conviction - Page 7
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: misdemeanor domestic violence conviction

  1. Thank you all

    God bless you all

  2.   
  3. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis County, MO
    Posts
    3,445
    OK guys...let it go. He had explained himself and said he is sorry. I didn't know the real story either so let us give him a bit of slack. There are just some people who do not know how to express themselves. I would advice you, Mr. Freeloader to take the advice of many here to find yourself a lawyer and have your record expunge. In the meantime, take care of that temper. It is scary to say the least.
    "Don't let the door hit ya where the dawg shudda bit ya!"
    G'day and Glock
    GATEWAY SWIFT WING ST. LOUIS

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Cotillion View Post
    I thought DV prevented even BUYING a gun which is the only thing that confuses me
    Correct, he can't buy or possess a firearm. If he goes to a gun store to buy a firearm, they won't sell it to him when they run a background check. However, if he purchases a gun from a private party who doesn't have to run a check, the guy will be buying a gun he legally can't possess.

  5. #64
    I actually learned something here, I had never heard of the Lautenberg Act.

  6. #65
    Maybe he will use the 'Gunshow Loophole' to buy a gun.;)

    KK

  7. #66
    As a practicing attorney (I am admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida), I encourage anyone who suspects he or she might be ensnared in the Lautenberg Amendment net to contact an attorney who is licensed and practices in your state and is well-versed on firearm laws to determine whether you are truly prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms and, if so, what your specific options would be for having your right to possess firearms restored through a pardon or expungement (availability varies widely by state).

    Under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33):
    (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C) [should read (B)], the term "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" means an offense that—

    (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and

    (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

    (B)(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—

    (I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and

    (II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either

    (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or

    (bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.

    (ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
    This is far from a simple, cut-and-dry definition. While most of us might think that assault and battery would surely fit within this definition, in U.S. v. White, 606 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2010), the Fourth Circuit applied the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (2010) (holding that simple touching doesn't constitute "physical force" under the Armed Career Criminal Act) to hold that the crime of assault and battery under Virginia law includes nonviolent force, such as an offensive touching, and that "violent force," as required in Johnson, is not an element of assault and battery under Virginia law. However, I caution everyone that each case is different and should be carefully examined by an attorney well-versed in firearm laws who is licensed and practices in your state.

    In addition, depending on the state, a person who remains ensnared in the Lautenberg net may still have options, such as seeking a pardon or expungement. However, seeking the advice of a licensed attorney who practices in your state.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Attorney, The Law Offices of James M. Mullins, Jr., PLLC
    Founder and Past President, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

  8. No more gun show loopholes in Oregon. Well unless they meet him across the street

  9. #68
    Don't talk to your sheriff! Generally they don't have a clue about what the law is and they will make something up.

  10. #69
    There I was on a Jury about 12 years back with a domestic 'disturbance of the peace' case. The guy had slept on the couch to avoid a confrontation when the 'lady' came home. She comes in at 2 A.M., drunk & all. She wakes the guy, who is sober & starts a ruckus. Later when the cops come, he is taken away & ticketed/arrested.

    During trial even the 'victim' was trying to help the guy. The correct charge may of been, equal treatment for both.

    Back in the jury room a few said 'guilty, the fine isn't much anyway'. I reminded them that this could haunt the guy down the road, besides the simple fine.

    I'm more a tough on crime sorta guy, but this fellow 'walked'. I'm not taking a stand one way or another with the original poster. Have any of you heard of a spiteful Ex trying to mess with a guy's gun right? Yes, it happens. Of course his case started before some of these laws came to be.

  11. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by freeloader View Post
    My CHILD WAS GETTING ABUSSED CANT YOU READ? I didnt say sexually abused i said abused by some guy choking a 2 year old by picking him up by his hood on a sweatshirt and throwing him acrooss the room onto a bed and pushing his face into a bowl of cereal and milk because my child wouldnt eat his cereal.this was all wrote in a..statement by the mom,so its not made up by the mom because the teenage children in the house he was abusing seen it also..i know were not here for legal matters thats over with,i was just defending myself once again by most of you people judging, Its pretty easy to tell in people who is going where come judgment day,people are so frikken rude,theres a few on here that are going to be saved,the rest of ya,i think your screwed...And you know what i live in northern wisconsin on a big farm so im sure you wont ever see me,but watch out for them guys like me,they could be packin and arent suppose too,are you going to shoot him?be ready cuz he might be billy the kid...
    So what facts did the prosecutor use to convict you?

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast