• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gun restriction rules and regulations question

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,223
1,589
136
I have a question for you guys. It stems from this story

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Woodlands-man-kills-wife-self-with-kids-nearby-3591113.php
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/veterinarian-shot-by-estranged-husband-tried-to-file-police-report-earlier-attorney-says/

In a nutshell a veterinarian filed for divorce from her husband about a year ago. He doesn't take it well. On dec 13 2011, he shows up at her office and puts a gun to her head. Staff members rush in to intervene, but the guy holsters the gun before anyone other than the victim could see it and flees the scene. The cops refuse to intervene because technically its the victims word vs his concerning the use of the gun.

So here is where it gets a little interesting for me. She successfully files a restraining order on him 2 days after the incident. He however eventually murders her at her home with a gun and then kills himself, just yesterday. This sort of thing is extremely common in my opinion: guy is forced into a restraining order because a woman fears for her life and then eventually kills her anyway with a gun. Such stories wrench my gut, but are extremely common (imo such murderers involved in such stories don't even deserve proper burials).

But that is not what I want to talk about. I'm under the impression that a restriction for gun ownership includes being under a restraining order. If that is true, how did this guy commit a murder with a gun? Why weren't all his weapons immediately confiscated as soon as the order was in place and him barred from purchasing a new gun as long as the restraining order stands?

And if I am wrong about this particular restriction, shouldn't there be a rule (and a well enforced rule at that) that if a judge sees you as a danger to another person and enacts such an order, that you should immediately have all registered weapons taken by the police, as well as a home and car sweep for weapons, and be barred from ownership for the life of the order?

Are there any other restrictions you think need to be added to who can own a gun besides criminal history, mental health, etc etc. Curious what you guys think.
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,464
719
126
I dont believe that rule exists. Lets take it a step further. Guns arent required to be registered. How will authorities know if they got them all? A complete search of the house is absolutely out of the question for obvious reasons. But lets just say they confiscate them all. If the guy was intent on shooting his soon-to-be ex, do you not think he find a gun in a matter of hours?

That said, I'll flip the question around. What percentage of gun deaths are committed by CCW permit holders with registered guns?

And if I am wrong about this particular restriction, shouldn't there be a rule (and a well enforced rule at that) that if a judge sees you as a danger to another person and enacts such an order, that you should immediately have all registered weapons taken by the police, as well as a home and car sweep for weapons, and be barred from ownership for the life of the order?
Absolutely not. This is terribly unreasonable.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,736
669
126
"Extremely common"? Out of 311 million people, how many are murdered by ex-significant others each year?

It's rare enough that it makes the national news when it happens, so I'm not seeing an epidemic here.

And for those crazy enough to do this, how many would have used a knife, hammer, baseball bat, or even a fluffy pillow if they had to?

And if I am wrong about this particular restriction, shouldn't there be a rule (and a well enforced rule at that) that if a judge sees you as a danger to another person and enacts such an order, that you should immediately have all registered weapons taken by the police, as well as a home and car sweep for weapons, and be barred from ownership for the life of the order?
I could maybe see putting them into escrow under extreme circumstances where there is some evidence that violence could occur. If a judge can commit someone to an institution under certain conditions I suppose seizing guns isn't any worse.

But he'd still have that fluffy pillow.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
Great idea. Everyone should always be held guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
And if I am wrong about this particular restriction, shouldn't there be a rule (and a well enforced rule at that) that if a judge sees you as a danger to another person and enacts such an order, that you should immediately have all registered weapons taken by the police, as well as a home and car sweep for weapons, and be barred from ownership for the life of the order?
No. Period. End of story. Some liberal ass judge decides he hates guns, judges someone as a danger, poof go the guns. Bullshit. 4th amendment and 2nd amendment stand.

Better, guns aren't registered.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
How do all the people with criminal backgrounds, or 13 year olds get guns? There are ways to get them that are *GASP* illegal . . . in which no matter how many laws you pass people will still die.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Search and seizure of private property without a conviction or even probable cause. What could possibly go wrong?

Suggestions like this are exactly why so many firearm owners oppose gun registration databases.
 

RampantAndroid

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2004
6,591
3
81
Search and seizure of private property without a conviction or even probable cause. What could possibly go wrong?

Suggestions like this are exactly why so many firearm owners oppose gun registration databases.
Well, I oppose that simply because it isn't other people's business what I own. I don't want people targeting my home so they can steal some guns while I'm not home. I don't want the judging looks from uninformed dolts who think that the second you own a gun you become a murderer. (yes, I work with some of those people. "Oh, you own a gun? How long until you come to work and shoot us?")
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,017
1
76
If someone is so dangerous that their guns should be confiscated then they should be incarcerated or institutionalized to begin with.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
In CA a person under a Domestic Violence restraining order has 48-hours to relinquish their firearms to either a licensed dealer or Law Enforcement for storage. Once the restraining order is lifted they can then get the firearms back.
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
Technically, he would have had to be found guilty of domestic abuse to have his gun rights taken away. Not just a restraining order.

At least that is how I understand it in the simplest form. I am sure there are a thousand different laws no one knows about that cover this.

The problem, isn't a gun problem. A gun is a tool. I know this sounds like pro gun propaganda. And in the interest of full disclosure, I fully support people being armed.

Back to the issue at hand, guns are a tool, a very powerful and effective tool, be it for defense, or offense, for protecting oneself and family, or hunting, or for committing violent acts.

However, the root problem is still people. A person capable of first degree murder, ie with calculation, will kill with or without a gun. Which this guy obviously fits into that description.

That doesn't cover the people that may get angry and attack someone when drunk, etc, that might kill if they have a gun, which would fit other murder categories.

So for the discussion of the case you brought up, even had he been convicted of domestic abuse, and had all his guns stripped away, nothing except lack of opportunity would stop him from purchasing a firearm illegally, or just killing her via another method. Since he obviously didn't care about the restraining order, I don't see how one would expect him to obey any other laws that say he shouldn't murder his ex-wife.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,267
3
76
Such stories wrench my gut, but are extremely common (imo such murderers involved in such stories don't even deserve proper burials).
WTF are you talking about? This is not "extremely common" by any stretch of the imagination.

But that is not what I want to talk about. I'm under the impression that a restriction for gun ownership includes being under a restraining order.
That would be a state to state regulation.

If that is true, how did this guy commit a murder with a gun? Why weren't all his weapons immediately confiscated as soon as the order was in place and him barred from purchasing a new gun as long as the restraining order stands?
Um ...seriously? Do you think that all the guns used in crimes are legally bought and registered to the criminal?

And if I am wrong about this particular restriction, shouldn't there be a rule (and a well enforced rule at that) that if a judge sees you as a danger to another person and enacts such an order, that you should immediately have all registered weapons taken by the police, as well as a home and car sweep for weapons, and be barred from ownership for the life of the order?
If the judge sees you as a danger to people then there would be a reason, and that reason, if enough to make you a danger in his eyes, should be enough to lock you up. So no, just because someone thinks you might be a danger, they shouldn't be able to take away your property, and rights. There's this thing called due process, maybe you've heard of it?

Curious what you guys think.
I think people that think like you should be have your computers taken away, and snipped so you don't infect others. Of course that is only my opinion.

SilthDraeth said:
Technically, he would have had to be found guilty of domestic abuse to have his gun rights taken away. Not just a restraining order.

At least that is how I understand it in the simplest form. I am sure there are a thousand different laws no one knows about that cover this.

The problem, isn't a gun problem. A gun is a tool. I know this sounds like pro gun propaganda. And in the interest of full disclosure, I fully support people being armed.

Back to the issue at hand, guns are a tool, a very powerful and effective tool, be it for defense, or offense, for protecting oneself and family, or hunting, or for committing violent acts.

However, the root problem is still people. A person capable of first degree murder, ie with calculation, will kill with or without a gun. Which this guy obviously fits into that description.

That doesn't cover the people that may get angry and attack someone when drunk, etc, that might kill if they have a gun, which would fit other murder categories.

So for the discussion of the case you brought up, even had he been convicted of domestic abuse, and had all his guns stripped away, nothing except lack of opportunity would stop him from purchasing a firearm illegally, or just killing her via another method. Since he obviously didn't care about the restraining order, I don't see how one would expect him to obey any other laws that say he shouldn't murder his ex-wife.
Spot fucking on.

Here's the question for those that want to keep restricting our gun rights based on the actions of others ...

How is making more laws against gun owners going to stop a criminal, someone who by definition does not obey the law, from using guns?
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
"Extremely common"? Out of 311 million people, how many are murdered by ex-significant others each year?

It's rare enough that it makes the national news when it happens, so I'm not seeing an epidemic here.

And for those crazy enough to do this, how many would have used a knife, hammer, baseball bat, or even a fluffy pillow if they had to?



I could maybe see putting them into escrow under extreme circumstances where there is some evidence that violence could occur. If a judge can commit someone to an institution under certain conditions I suppose seizing guns isn't any worse.

But he'd still have that fluffy pillow.
I agree in that divorce brings out the worst in some people. Those individuals hell bent on causing physical harm will eventually find other means to exact their ounce of revenge such as is seen in other nations (occasionally in the US) where a spouse resorts to using battery acid to disfigure their significant other. Or in many cases just kills the person out right via other means not involving firearms, e.g. stabbings, beatings, poisoning, vehicular homicide, etc
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,511
0
76
I believe its called situational bias. News doesn't report boring stories that are common occurances. They report the rare news stories
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Gun restriction rules and regulations question


I have a question for you guys. It stems from this story

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Woodlands-man-kills-wife-self-with-kids-nearby-3591113.php
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/05/veterinarian-shot-by-estranged-husband-tried-to-file-police-report-earlier-attorney-says/

In a nutshell a veterinarian filed for divorce from her husband about a year ago. He doesn't take it well. On dec 13 2011, he shows up at her office and puts a gun to her head. Staff members rush in to intervene, but the guy holsters the gun before anyone other than the victim could see it and flees the scene. The cops refuse to intervene because technically its the victims word vs his concerning the use of the gun.

So here is where it gets a little interesting for me. She successfully files a restraining order on him 2 days after the incident. He however eventually murders her at her home with a gun and then kills himself, just yesterday. This sort of thing is extremely common in my opinion: guy is forced into a restraining order because a woman fears for her life and then eventually kills her anyway with a gun. Such stories wrench my gut, but are extremely common (imo such murderers involved in such stories don't even deserve proper burials).

But that is not what I want to talk about. I'm under the impression that a restriction for gun ownership includes being under a restraining order. If that is true, how did this guy commit a murder with a gun? Why weren't all his weapons immediately confiscated as soon as the order was in place and him barred from purchasing a new gun as long as the restraining order stands?

And if I am wrong about this particular restriction, shouldn't there be a rule (and a well enforced rule at that) that if a judge sees you as a danger to another person and enacts such an order, that you should immediately have all registered weapons taken by the police, as well as a home and car sweep for weapons, and be barred from ownership for the life of the order?

Are there any other restrictions you think need to be added to who can own a gun besides criminal history, mental health, etc etc. Curious what you guys think.
Clearly it's the gun's fault.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
But that is not what I want to talk about. I'm under the impression that a restriction for gun ownership includes being under a restraining order. If that is true, how did this guy commit a murder with a gun?
You can not be under a restraining order and buy a firearm.

As far as I know, the restraining order does not affect current gun ownership.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,960
33
91
You can not be under a restraining order and buy a firearm.

As far as I know, the restraining order does not affect current gun ownership.
Depends on the state you live in. In CA under certain restraining orders you cannot possess a firearm.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY