Talk:Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

opponent, proponent sections[edit]

The recent edit by 209.172.114.3 served to dilute the proponent view, with the appearance that 209.172.114.3 is an opponent interjecting. What I propose, as a mechanism to maintain a balance between the two hotly opposite points of view on this topic is to allow each side of the point of view to be plainly written and seen, but isolated into opponent and proponent view sections. Rewording the opposite point of view to dilute it fails to allow both points of view to be presented. I believe my proposal is feasible and potentially effective to achieve NPOV. BruceHallman 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

April 29, 2006 - I am removing the phrase "in light of the fact that typically men tend to be the perpetrators and women the victims of domestic violence" as this is a widely contested perception, and at a minimum should not be asserted as "fact". See e.g., http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13aj.htm ; http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker090799.asp ;

I have re-written the Proponent section to reflect the actual legal arguments, since the previous version was clearly written by an opponent in an effort to dilute the arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 (talkcontribs) 03:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Military impact may be exaggerated[edit]

I'm checking out the impact on DoD units. DoD policy is that the Lautenberg amendment applies to individual weapons, not ships, planes, and tanks. USMC policy ("every Marine a rifleman") is generally to separate barred servicemembers, per MARADMIN 186/03. U.S. Navy policy is in NAVADMIN 085/98, and only applies to jobs where the individual uses personal weapons, which most Navy jobs do not. U.S. Army policy is supposedly in DA PAM 600-8-200, but I can't find that document and the number may be bogus. Army policy is generally to reassign enlisted soldiers rather than separate them, but it's a bar to reenlistment and promotion. Officers are separated from the service.[1] USAF policy seems to be similar to Navy policy, and is in a huge PDF [2]. All services will not enlist persons under a gun ban. --John Nagle (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Lautenberg Effect"[edit]

I'm surprised that there's no section about the "Lautenberg Effect" (where offenders are more violent, knowing their rights can be violated without conviction). This was documented in many news stories, and I think that many of them were around the time Virginia passed the requirement of officers to make arrests in domestic disputes, without officer discretion (thus leading to an increase in violence against victims). Anyone have Lexis/Nexis or good suggestions to find these sources?--71.203.125.108 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lautenberg Effects. Men accused of domestic violence not involving use of firearms are more likely to fight a domestic violence charge in court because it has federal felony impact on the right to own a firearm. Some jurisdictions will charge men with simple assault in domestic violence cases to avoid clogging the overburdened court system with challenges to domestic violence charges; this is suspected to be more frequent if the man is a policeman or member of the military, since it would mean loss of employment. Naaman Brown (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Record keeping?[edit]

Anyone know if DOJ or some other group would be (or is supposed to be) maintaining a publicly accessible list of people who've been hit with this restriction? Thanks wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Deep webns,

I have just modified one external link on Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Does this ever expire?[edit]

The article is written in dense legalese. I read the whole thing in order to answer a question, and could not figure out if the answer is there or not. Just now read a post on the internet by a guy claiming a misdeamor conviction for domestic violence results in a permanent loss of 2nd Amendment rights, forever. The Article talks about "orders for protections" and so one assumes that this ban on firearms possession and transportation only lasts as long as as a restraining order, but IDK. 1) What's the answer to this question, and 2) Could it be included in the Article in plain language?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)