Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I do know of a case where a police officer was stripped of his badge and gun after an old DV conviction came to light, and who applied for a pardon. He was given the pardon and was restored to full duty. In fact, I believe he has now retired. If you were pardoned, and the incident was as minor as you claim, you might still be eligible for hire as a police officer. At the least, you would again be able to possess firearms. It is unusual for a pardons board to even consider a misdemeanor case, and this is one of the first barriers you will encounter. But know that it can be done.

    The case I am referring to was in Nevada, if that is at all helpful to you.
    Tim Dees, now writing as a plain old forum member, his superpowers lost to an encounter with gold kryptonite.

    Comment


    • #17
      Retroactive is Retroactive

      Originally posted by SA13 View Post
      18USC922(g)(9) is NOT applied retroactively, and is therefore NOT ex post facto law. The law states that it is a crime for anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence to possess firearms or ammunition. The law is only applied to the person if they possess a firearm or ammunition after they have been convicted of such a crime, and after the date on which the law went into affect. No one can punished for having a gun or ammo prior to their date of conviction, or prior to the date the law went into affect. Therefore the law is NOT ex post facto. They are not being punished for having firearms prior to their date of conviction, or prior to the date the law went into affect.
      We'll have to disagree on this one! If you plead guilty because you believed at the time of the plea that the only loss would be a small fine imposed by the court, then (years later) this law is enacted which has the effects of:
      1) Denying you the right to own firearms/ammunition (an additional punishment not in effect or considered at time of plea)
      2) Denying you the opportunity to become a police officer, soldier, etc...(an additional punishment not in effect or considered at time of plea)
      it is ex post facto!

      To follow your line of thought, suppose "we" really wanted to teach DV defendants how bad their behavior was by imposing the following on "everyone previously convicted of a DV related offense":
      1) Making it a felony for them to marry.
      2) Making it a felony for them to date a member of the opposite sex without having them give written warnings that they've been convicted (maybe 20 years earlier).
      3) Making it a felony for them to enter a polling place or register to vote.

      I can understand (though not necessarily agree) with imposing these restrictions/ punishments on persons convicted after the passage of the laws, but applying it retroactively? People who plea guilty to offenses must do so "knowingly" and how can they do this if their affected by a law which is enacted after the plea?
      "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SA13 View Post
        The only criminalizes actions that occur AFTER the law was passed. If you had a DV conviction predating the law you possessed a firearm or ammunition before the law went into affect in 1996 you cannot be punished for possessing the firearm and/or ammunition. You can only be punished for possessing the firearm and/or ammunition AFTER the law went into affect. Therefore it does NOT punish you for something that happened before the law went into affect, only for actions AFTER the law went into affect. If you don't possess firearms or ammunition AFTER the law went into affect you cannot be punished.

        You are not being put on trial, convicted and put in jail for anything you did before the law went into affect, so it's not ex post facto law. You can only be tried, convicted, and put in jail for violating the law AFTER it went into affect. It's that simple. If you don't like it, lobby your Congressman to change the law, but the Judiciary within it's powers under Article III of the Constitution has repeatedly rejected the notion that 18USC922(g)(9) is ex post facto.

        However, if you feel that it is ex post facto law go consult with an attorney who is an expert on Con Law and ask that attorney to research it. I think you'll find the answers you get from him will be completely in line with what I've already stated.



        Let me start by saying that I am not arguing your point per se. I appreciate your input. What I am saying is that they should have never made the law retro-active (IE pertain to people who had already been charged prior to the bill taking effect) but rather only to those who were charged from that day forward. No matter how you look at this, the fact that I had already pled guilty, paid the fines, went through counseling yada yada yada, and then two years later after nobody having any objection to my being in charge of a platoon of MPs in support of the Bosnian crisis, now all of a sudden I am a threat to society and cannot be trusted to do the duties I had been doing up to that point, losing two careers, my military pension and my families livelihood, sure seems like double jeopardy (ex post facto) to me.

        To the letter of the law, maybe not, just seems like splitting hairs to me. But then again it was my life turned upside down, not some overzealous politicians.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mdolan View Post
          What I am saying is that they should have never made the law retro-active . . .
          Again, it's not retroactive, it only criminalizes actions that occur after the law was passed. However, I doubt you will ever be willing to see that point due to your emotional attachment to this subject.
          . . . after nobody having any objection to my being in charge of a platoon of MPs . . .
          Sorry, but that's not true. The US Congress objected to you possessing firearms and ammunition, and the senior leadership in your branch of service objected to the notion of continuing to fill a billet, the number of which are limited by law, with someone unable to carry out a basic requirement of that billet.
          . . . sure seems like double jeopardy (ex post facto) to me.
          Sorry, but again you are confused about the law. Double Jeopard and Ex Post Facto are two different issues, and neither applies. Your life and liberty are NOT being put in jeopardy a second time for a crime which you have already had adjudicated in the courts. You cannot be put on trial again, and sentenced again for the 1995 DV crime, and therefore are not facing double jeopardy. You could only face a trial and punishment if you possess a firearm or ammunition AFTER the date of your conviction, AND AFTER the date 18USC922(g)(9) went into affect, and therefore it is not ex post facto law because it does not allow for prosecution of actions committed prior to the law being enacted.
          To the letter of the law, maybe not, just seems like splitting hairs to me.
          Well you are entitled to your opinion. Your options are 1) try to get your rights restored as discussed earlier, 2) lobby Congress to repeal the law, 3) seek relief from the federal courts, but if you consult with an expert in Con Law I think you will be told exactly what I've told you already, there is no Constitional claim based on a belief that the law is "ex post facto."

          Good luck.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SA13 View Post
            Again, it's not retroactive, it only criminalizes actions that occur after the law was passed. However, I doubt you will ever be willing to see that point due to your emotional attachment to this subject.Sorry, but that's not true. The US Congress objected to you possessing firearms and ammunition, and the senior leadership in your branch of service objected to the notion of continuing to fill a billet, the number of which are limited by law, with someone unable to carry out a basic requirement of that billet.Sorry, but again you are confused about the law. Double Jeopard and Ex Post Facto are two different issues, and neither applies. Your life and liberty are NOT being put in jeopardy a second time for a crime which you have already had adjudicated in the courts. You cannot be put on trial again, and sentenced again for the 1995 DV crime, and therefore are not facing double jeopardy. You could only face a trial and punishment if you possess a firearm or ammunition AFTER the date of your conviction, AND AFTER the date 18USC922(g)(9) went into affect, and therefore it is not ex post facto law because it does not allow for prosecution of actions committed prior to the law being enacted. Well you are entitled to your opinion. Your options are 1) try to get your rights restored as discussed earlier, 2) lobby Congress to repeal the law, 3) seek relief from the federal courts, but if you consult with an expert in Con Law I think you will be told exactly what I've told you already, there is no Constitional claim based on a belief that the law is "ex post facto."

            Good luck.



            Again, I respect your opinion and input. It is not that I am emotionally attached that makes me feel this way, I just think it is wrong, and simply do not read the law the way you do.
            As far as my leadership just not wanting to fill a billet with me, They knew before we left (I found this out upon returning to the states) about the law, it was just easier to look the other way because they needed me to go.

            Anyway, I will just respectfully agree to disagree.
            Thanks again

            Comment


            • #21
              Gun Control

              Dolan, By all means consider the route Tim has suggested. Your thread has generated some excellent, thought provoking points. I think this is what a thread is all about.In any event, give some thought to Tim's advice. Once again, I sincerely hope things work out well for you. Good luck

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by PhilipCal View Post
                Dolan, By all means consider the route Tim has suggested. Your thread has generated some excellent, thought provoking points. I think this is what a thread is all about.In any event, give some thought to Tim's advice. Once again, I sincerely hope things work out well for you. Good luck


                I was going to file for a pardon through our present Governor, however, upon researching all the members of the review board it came to my attention that our Gov. was one of the founding members pushing for this ammendment in Illinois. I dont believe my chances would be to good. But I guess all they can do is say no again.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by mdolan View Post
                  Again, I respect your opinion and input. It is not that I am emotionally attached that makes me feel this way, I just think it is wrong, and simply do not read the law the way you do.
                  As far as my leadership just not wanting to fill a billet with me, They knew before we left (I found this out upon returning to the states) about the law, it was just easier to look the other way because they needed me to go.

                  Anyway, I will just respectfully agree to disagree.
                  Thanks again

                  No offense, modolan, but are you qualified to "read the law?" It's been tested through some pretty serious legal procedures, and I don't think you're going to come up with a new argument.

                  Get a lawyer, who can read the law. I can't in such matters, as it's not a criminal matter, and I've only dealt with criminal law. Civil law makes no sense to me.

                  BTW, I think people who abuse their spouses should not have the right to be a cop. That's just me. I've been to too many DV calls. Friday night in my jurisdiction a spurned lover shot his ex girlfriend with a 30-06 from the road inside her house. He hit her in the shoulder but she still might lose the arm. That's DV to the extreme, but I will say cracking down on DV cases in my county has been productive. And I also believe "once an abuser, always an abuser." It's in the blood, it shows a total lack of restraint, and the recividism rate is remarkable. Such folks with a lack of restraint don't need to be cops.

                  Maybe I'm wrong about that. I hate to see someone lose their rights to carry a pistol from a DV case, but you also can lose them for being treated at a mental hospital, for being addicted to drugs, for being arrested for a felony, and for renouncing your citizenship.
                  "Say hal-lo to my leetle frahnd!"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [QUOTE=Gene L;891513]No offense, modolan, but are you qualified to "read the law?" It's been tested through some pretty serious legal procedures, and I don't think you're going to come up with a new argument.

                    Get a lawyer, who can read the law. I can't in such matters, as it's not a criminal matter, and I've only dealt with criminal law. Civil law makes no sense to me.

                    BTW, I think people who abuse their spouses should not have the right to be a cop. That's just me. I've been to too many DV calls. Friday night in my jurisdiction a spurned lover shot his ex girlfriend with a 30-06 from the road inside her house. He hit her in the shoulder but she still might lose the arm. That's DV to the extreme, but I will say cracking down on DV cases in my county has been productive. And I also believe "once an abuser, always an abuser." It's in the blood, it shows a total lack of restraint, and the recividism rate is remarkable. Such folks with a lack of restraint don't need to be cops.

                    Maybe I'm wrong about that. I hate to see someone lose their rights to carry a pistol from a DV case, but you also can lose them for being treated at a mental hospital, for being addicted to drugs, for being arrested for a felony, and for renouncing your citizenship.[/QUO



                    That is a little presumptious on your part since I did not give any details. It was more that I was in an argument with my brother in-law and in the process of trying to get past her to grab him I inadvertantly grabbed her by the shirt and for a second grabbed her by the throat. I did not nor do I "abuse my wife". As far as recidivism, we are still happily married.

                    I also am more concerned with finishing my military time than becoming an officer, I think I stated that. Not so sure that your attitude of "once an abuser, always an abuser" is such a healthy attitude to have either.

                    I also do not claim to be a lawyer or someone who claims to be an expert with the law, all I know is what I have been forced to deal with. If you are so sure that the losses I have suffered because of what I did are fair, I would be curious to see what kinds of mistakes you have made in your life and how you were judged.

                    I thank you for your input and your response to my post, I do however have to say that I think you are a little too quick off the line with your judgement.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Yeah, it's difficult to discern the differnce between a shirt and a throat. And, if I recall, you pled guilty. Without physical evidence, there's no reason for an arrest. I've heard that argument before.

                      It's down to you. Check with the military and see how they view DV. Doesnt' look like they're very tolerant.
                      "Say hal-lo to my leetle frahnd!"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mdolan View Post
                        . . . in the process of trying to get past her to grab him I inadvertantly grabbed her by the shirt and for a second grabbed her by the throat.
                        So was the throat grab also "inadvertant?" I've pushed past a lot of people in my day, not all needed to be "grabbed" and any and all "grabs" were quite intentional.



                        Further, Gene L is right about the issue of "reading the law." This has been addressed in the courts, but if you disagree again I encourage to consult an attorney who is an expert on Con Law rather than just listen to those of us posting here on officer.com.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gene L View Post
                          Yeah, it's difficult to discern the differnce between a shirt and a throat. And, if I recall, you pled guilty. Without physical evidence, there's no reason for an arrest. I've heard that argument before.

                          It's down to you. Check with the military and see how they view DV. Doesnt' look like they're very tolerant.


                          You know, I've been nothing but civil on here and I'm trying really hard to be respectful but your kind of an idiot. Did I say I confused anything? I stated pretty clearly that it was an exchange, an altercation with my brother in-law, my wife was stepping in between us, I was still going after him. Maybe you did not read all the posts, I stated I pled guilty on the advice of a public defender, so yes I plead guilty, so what.

                          Like I said, I came here for advice not your preconcieved notions that everyone who has made a mistake in their lives (which I'm sure you never have) is bad for life. I'm sorry your years as a public servent have made you so jaded. I'm glad you feel so confident in your knowledge of who I am to discount all my years of dedicated service to this country, to my family and to myself that you can wipe that all away with your judgemental opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by SA13 View Post
                            So was the throat grab also "inadvertant?" I've pushed past a lot of people in my day, not all needed to be "grabbed" and any and all "grabs" were quite intentional.



                            Further, Gene L is right about the issue of "reading the law." This has been addressed in the courts, but if you disagree again I encourage to consult an attorney who is an expert on Con Law rather than just listen to those of us posting here on officer.com.

                            Your right, you have me all figured out, it was intentional. I find it amazing that you as an officer cannot see that in a scuffle this could have happened. I guess I made a mistake coming on here and asking for advice. I really didnt figure that I would be branded by officers past or present for this incident without really knowing that much about it, guess I just expected better. Sorry to have wasted your time, I hope you all are not this quick to judgement with everybody.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              It's not the way you see it, sir. You're asking US to interpret law, or even to change law. It is what it is, not what you want it to be.

                              There is a principal which you don't seem to understand: "If you're not guilty, don't plead guilty." Now that you have, your choices are limited, and best answered by a lawyer. There is also a principal in DV cases: first, the LEO must identify the primary aggressor, and second, there must be physical evidence of laying hands on (your wife, in this case.)

                              I re-reading your original post, I don't actually see any helpful advice anyone here could give you. Except to avoid scuffles.
                              "Say hal-lo to my leetle frahnd!"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gene L View Post
                                It's not the way you see it, sir. You're asking US to interpret law, or even to change law. It is what it is, not what you want it to be.

                                There is a principal which you don't seem to understand: "If you're not guilty, don't plead guilty." Now that you have, your choices are limited, and best answered by a lawyer. There is also a principal in DV cases: first, the LEO must identify the primary aggressor, and second, there must be physical evidence of laying hands on (your wife, in this case.)

                                I re-reading your original post, I don't actually see any helpful advice anyone here could give you. Except to avoid scuffles.



                                I was simply looking for some advice, or a LEO's interpretation, you gave it and I thank you.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4928 users online. 306 members and 4622 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X