Wyoming is Fighting the Feds to Expunge the Records of Domestic Violence Abusers and Allow Them to O

http://www.gunguys.com/#post-2551


Wyoming is Fighting the Feds to Expunge the Records of Domestic Violence Abusers and Allow Them to Own Guns


Well, if you’re a woman who’s been a victim of domestic violence, you might not want to move to Wyoming.

The state is fighting the federal government for the right to erase domestic violence convictions. Why?

According to an October 8th Associated Press article, “The state has been waging a legal fight to uphold a 2004 state law that allows people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to regain their right to own firearms by having their records expunged.”

-snip-

Now we are seeing more selfishness at work. According to gun zealots in Wyoming, the “victims” are the men who do the abusing. The Wyoming Republican Speaker of the House makes the “pity the poor outdoorsman” argument: "If it was a domestic violence thing where a family went a little too far in defining their opinions to each other, should an individual be held for life never to hunt in the state of Wyoming again? I think that's probably going a little too far."

Well that's some spin if we've ever heard it from the gun lobby. Debate and domestic abuse should never be used in the same sentence

So, once again, it’s all about the self-centered gun owner, not about their responsibilities and behavior.

-snip-

Apparently, they have different standards of civilized behavior and upholding the law in Wyoming.
--------------------


and they tell us they love us

we know better

who do we know from Wyoming? :think:

Nah, couldn't be.

But oh, I forgot, they just beat up their girlfriends and wives right? So no big deal.





(And yes, I'm sure a handful of the offenders are women, and they shouldn't get guns either.)

Lynne beating the shit out of Big Dick....


:rofl:

And I'm only half-kidding....

;)

lived in his vacation house, so he could take the VP job!

That is so far out there that it just doesn't seem true.

"If it was a domestic violence thing where a family went a little too far in defining their opinions to each other"

Anyone else "hear" the word little earlier in that sentence, as in, "if it was a little domestic violence thing"?

I'm also interested in how physical violence is equated with going a "little too far in defining their opinions". 'Scuse me? Are the cops in Wyoming arresting people on "domestic violence" charges for yelling at each other or for committing violence against another?

I'm so tired of the people who would reduce violence to a little problem.

As opposed to felony domestic violence?

A PO is a "protective order" to keep the abuser away from whomever they're abusing or threatening to abuse.

Stalking is, I think, self-explanatory.

edit: I guess I should add a link to what I read.

I had to sit through several court proceedings while my best friend got an OP against a former boss who was sexually harassing her. Some of the stories were unbelievable.

Woman gets OP against man. Woman calls man several times. Man calls woman back. Woman has man arrested for violation. I'm sorry, but a situation like that does not qualify as "domestic violence" in my mind, and I do not think a person should be robbed of his (or her) rights over something like that.

Physical violence, absolutely. Writing a phone call or a letter.... sorry, that doesn't cut it.

You sure shouldn't be allowed to experiment with far more serious urges. Men need to quit blaming women for their problems and acting like they can't make choices on their own. If you're hooked up with a psycho, you have just as much responsibility to get away from her as a woman has to get away from an abuser.

they then disregard the PO, then yes, they are in violation and have committed a misdemeanor domestic violence offense; I believe this is all proven or disproven in court.

In the scenario you presented, the woman may have had the man arrested, was he then found guilty? We still have a little bit of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" in this country so the man you mentioned, presuming the story you heard to be true, may have been found not-guilty of violating the PO.

From what I've read, in order to be granted a petition of PO, there has to be proof of violence or harassment.

I can tell from what you wrote that you've never received harassing or threatening phone calls or letters. I've not either but I know those who have, including my own mother who was subjected to 40-60 phone calls a day from my brother's then girlfriend. Long story so I won't go into details.

Phone calls and letters or emails can be very threatening. If you'll click around DU a bit you'll see some stories about posts some have received at blogs, emails others have received and even some cyber-stalking going on in private messages on this board as well as others.

Psychological abuse can be extremely threatening and damaging. I'm happy for you as it appears you have no knowledge of it.

While I am wholeheartedly behind the idea of banning anyone who receives a domestic violence conviction from possessing a firearm, I am just as wholeheartedly against the way the law was made retroactive.

In some - very few, I'm sure - instances in the past, before the law was passed, people may have had a choice of going to trial for something, or "just pleading to a domestic incident - that doesn't really mean anything." Years later, that "meaningless" domestic violence conviction resulted in a lifetime ban on firearms. (I know I've read of cases like this - the alternative charge the person was facing would not have resulted in a gun ban, but they chose the "lesser" domestic violence charge and ended up banned years after the fact, with no way to correct it. I'm sorry I don't have links to any specific cases right now.)

For those reasons, the retroactive part just seems unconstitutional to me. If Wyoming is coming up with a way to correct those mistakes, more power to them. People should not be punished for a crime they may not even have committed.

Retroactive laws put you on a very slippery slope.... How many people here have a traffic ticket? What if they pass a law next year that everyone who has ever had a traffic ticket is no longer allowed to drive? That would certainly make you wish you had gone to court to fight that thing ten years ago, wouldn't it? Be even worse if there was NO way under the legal system to change that conviction or your new driverless status under the law, wouldn't it?

There needs to be a way to right the wrongs, even if they are only a tiny percentage of the total. I hope that is all that Wyoming is trying to do.

because it was first to give women the vote.

Maybe dead women are still allowed to vote there, like in Chicago. :eyes: :sarcasm: