Laws about felons and gun rights

[Lincoln4]

Thanks for the link.  I have never seen an officer, military or city/county/other show up to a domestic dispute and not arrest someone.  This town is probably the worst for it, but for good reason.  A few (like 10 or more) years ago, and guy and gal got into an argument, the cops came, decided everyone was calmed down and left, then he killed her.  I know a lot of people that can't have guns, or use guns to do their duty due to an argument with the wife when the neighbor called the cops…I don't fault the cops for arresting the guy, but I think the law should be changed for people to get their rights taken for an argument.  If there isn't an actual "fight" or assault, why does that guy lose his gun rights.  If you and I get into a fight, and one of us goes to jail, is it a felony?

You'd be amazed by the number of "arguments" I've been to where apparently the arguing has been so loud that furniture shatters and blood vessels burst.     If you did a public disclosure request on those arguments, I suspect that there would be much more to it than what you were told.  Just sayin'...   

[The Weazle]

Washington is a must arrest state.  It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence. 

If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights.  Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day. 

[ICEMAN]

Washington is a must arrest state.  It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence. 

If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights.  Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day. 

Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?

[Lincoln4]

No problem.  Law is frequently open to some interpretation, and case law does change things occasionally.  Just take it with a grain of salt if someone tells you that they were arrested for just arguing with the spouse.  It's likely more than just an argument.  Speaking generally, people tend to minimize when they mess up (I've been guilty of that myself).  And who in their right mind would want to be know as a "wife beater"?  Washington does require an arrest, if there is probable cause for DV assault.  And yes, words could be an assault, if the person threatened reasonably believed the threat would be carried out.  Hey, most all of us have arguments with our spouse every once in a while.  But, threatening bodily harm and then chasing the person into a bathroom until the police arrive is different.  It's the "totality of the circumstances".  Does that make sense?

[ICEMAN]

Exactly.

Threats of physical harm are completely different than an arguement.

[The Weazle]

Washington is a must arrest state.  It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence. 

If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights.  Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day. 

Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?

Its all in the link posted above, and Lincoln verified it.
He also dispelled some rumors for me, for which I am thankful.
I do know that an argument can get you in jail, and your gun rights lost…Maybe most of the guys I "know" are downplaying it, but I know for a fact it happens, and it happens more than you want to know about.  I bet most of them get the cases dropped, and their rights restored, but the burden of proof is on the "offender" and many guys don't have the money and time to fight it for long. 

[BOWHUNTER45]

I have a friend who done some bad things way back when and lost his rights to have a firearm ...when got got out of jail the judge told him he could hunt with a bow BUT CAN NOT CARRY A KNIFE  That seriously threw me for a loop 

[ICEMAN]

Washington is a must arrest state.  It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence. 

If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights.  Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day. 

Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?

Its all in the link posted above, and Lincoln verified it.
He also dispelled some rumors for me, for which I am thankful.
I do know that an argument can get you in jail, and your gun rights lost…Maybe most of the guys I "know" are downplaying it, but I know for a fact it happens, and it happens more than you want to know about.  I bet most of them get the cases dropped, and their rights restored, but the burden of proof is on the "offender" and many guys don't have the money and time to fight it for long. 

Sorry if I come across as arguementative, but it is not all in the link that was posted. Lincoln did not verify your claims.

Are you convinced that a LEO must arrest you for being involved in an arguement? An arguement and threats of physical violence are two completely different things. No where in the statute does is state that a "verbal assualt" can in anyway get you arrested. You are misconstruing a physical threat for an arguement.

 

[JLS]

Washington is a must arrest state.  It also states that verbal assault can institute a threat to physical violence. 

If you are arrested for DV, you are losing your gun rights.  Lincoln, it sounds like you are a cop of some sort, and I am not trying to argue with you.  I just want to know why there are so many perceptions, when the law is written in black and white, and I deal with it every day. 

Can you show us this "must arrest" statute? Also, where "it" states that a "verbal assault" can "institute" a threat to physical violence?

Its all in the link posted above, and Lincoln verified it.
He also dispelled some rumors for me, for which I am thankful.
I do know that an argument can get you in jail, and your gun rights lost…Maybe most of the guys I "know" are downplaying it, but I know for a fact it happens, and it happens more than you want to know about.  I bet most of them get the cases dropped, and their rights restored, but the burden of proof is on the "offender" and many guys don't have the money and time to fight it for long.

I would guess they are downplaying it quite a lot, or else the argument involved a phrase along the nature of "I'm going to dig a hole and bury you" or something else of the sort.  Like maybe a flower vase suddenly defying all laws of physics and crashing into a wall as Lincoln4 suggested.

If there is PC for a DV assault the primary aggressor must be arrested.  Both CAN be arrested.  If there is no PC for the DV assault, then unless there is some other arrestable crime no one is going to jail. 

[Becky]

I have a friend who done some bad things way back when and lost his rights to have a firearm ...when got got out of jail the judge told him he could hunt with a bow BUT CAN NOT CARRY A KNIFE  That seriously threw me for a loop 

Smossy was told the same thing about knives somewhere along the lines... can't find an actual law for it though. Something about 3" or greater of a pocket knife.

[Smossy]

I have a friend who done some bad things way back when and lost his rights to have a firearm ...when got got out of jail the judge told him he could hunt with a bow BUT CAN NOT CARRY A KNIFE  That seriously threw me for a loop 

Smossy was told the same thing about knives somewhere along the lines... can't find an actual law for it though. Something about 3" or greater of a pocket knife.

3 1/2" but its more at an officers discretion. I see a knife as more a tool, not a weapon. But it is most definietly potentialy lethal. But so is a screwdriver

[csaaphill]

i've been told they can take your guns away if your with a felon or someone prohibited to won guns so not sure. But I think as others have said it's a matter of accessibility. The law says in ones possesion and in some cases doesn't have to be in his/her hands just access. I think it's clear that if its on your person but not readibly accessible by him then your safe. same as in the home not readibly accessible then your safe.
If a cop does try to take your guns because a friend has a felon I'd squeal like a pig to anyone and everyone who will listen and sue the begeezes out of him/them!

[Crunchy]

READ SECTION 9


Firearm Possession Prohibition
Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
$250,000 fine. Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted
to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable
conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
( a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person
participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the
person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits
the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or
partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Possession of a firearm may be either actual or constructive. The latter has been defined as
follows: “Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and intention at
a given time of exercising dominion and control over the object or over the area in which the object
is locate....” (See U.S. v Booth, et.al. 111 F.3d 2 [1st Cir. September 1997]). If you know the
firearm is present in your residence, vehicle, etc., and if it can be shown that you have the ability to
access and exercise control over that firearm personally or through another individual, then you
could be considered to have constructive possession of the firearm. You would then be subject to
new criminal charges and/or revocation of supervision. For these reasons, all firearms are to be
removed from your residence during the term of supervision.
______________________________________________________________________________