Top Menu

Denver’s 10th Circuit Court Ruling Has Wide Ramifications for Gun Owners

In news that should make gun owners quite happy, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court, which oversees 6 states and is based in Denver’s Byron White Courthouse issued a ruling in the case of Alexander Pauler, a Wichita, Kansas man who was deemed a prohibited firearms possessor following a misdemeanor domestic abuse case.

Pauler was found guilty of domestic abuse in 2009 after punching his girlfriend and, because of that, he was not allowed to be in the possession of a firearm. So we fast forward to 2014 when Pauler was found in possession of a firearm, after pulling it at a party. Pauler was now due in federal court because of the incident and was facing 24-30 months in prison for possessing it.

After a brief hearing, Pauler was found guilty and the sentence was laid down. 24-30 months in federal prison. However, the story did not end there. In 2016 Pauler and his attorneys reached a plea deal that reduced his sentence to five years of probation with no jail time but in the midst of this new round of arguments something strange happened …

Pauler’s route through the courts eventually found its way to the 10th Circuit in Denver which brings us to this week.

When the case hit the desk of the 10th Circuit Court, they began to see some irregularities with the law and the case took on a whole new meaning, now involving gun owner’s rights. Pauler’s case was even bigger than him and the judges used this example to make a statement about gun owners who have had their firearms taken from them. In their official statement, the judges stated that the law of the land …

“Clearly and consistently differentiates between state and local governments and between state statutes and municipal ordinances.”

What that means is that even with Pauler’s local misdemeanor, it should not affect his federal right to bear arms. The federal government supersedes the state in this matter of constitutional law.

10th Circuit Judge Monroe G. Mckay then stated in his official report that “the government has not demonstrated that he [Pauler] was prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

Now, what does this all mean? Well for Pauler it means that his prior crime of possessing a firearm is thrown out and his sentence is expunged. But, for former gun owners who’d like to defend themselves once more with a firearm, it could set the precedent that legal issues which don’t violate a federal crime may not afford local authorities the option to take your guns from you.

Many gun rights advocates are considering that a huge win and the start of a bright future for those who have had their guns taken from them by local law enforcement.

To be clear, if domestic abusers should or shouldn’t have guns is a big question … but not the question answered by this court decision. It’s a question relating to the State’s individual power to determine what should or shouldn’t qualify to strip someone of their second amendment rights vs the clear federal definition already in place.

What do you think about this change that may be occurring? Are you caught up on American Gun Law or was this a surprise to you? Do you think the 10th Circuit got this ruling right or should they have kept Pauler’s guns from him given the nature of his crimes? Let us know in the comments below.

, , , , ,

92 Responses to Denver’s 10th Circuit Court Ruling Has Wide Ramifications for Gun Owners

  1. Matthew Maruster May 25, 2017 at 3:11 pm #

    Great article and definitely a very important finding with far reaching implications!

  2. Darkwing May 26, 2017 at 8:03 am #

    There is a federal law that does cover this. BUT the fed’s blow it off because 50% of the military and 40% of cops could not have a gun even near them. My take: you slap, hit, punch another, not in self defense, you should not be allowed to have a gun at any time.

    • Steve Harmon May 31, 2017 at 2:00 pm #

      Thank God your opinion means absolutely nothing when it comes to my Constitutional rights.

      • 2bears May 31, 2017 at 6:11 pm #

        Absolutely !

      • Reno. February 22, 2018 at 10:40 pm #


    • C.L.(Chuck)Troupe May 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm #

      What the hell does slapping and/or puncing have to do with guns? How about cursing at someone for pissing you off? How about the giving of the finger? when states, counties and cities use the most lame-a$$ excuses for violating the 2nd amendment we see more and more need for the central government’s intervention. Some idiot decides he just “must have” an Army surplus 3.5 anti-tank rocket launcher. So he get’s drunk and blows up his barn with it. With gun-grabbing liberal morons punishing the idiot is not enough … they must now make themselves a LAW making it crime to own shuch a thing. Every GD progressive socialist liberal AH lives to turn the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Needs … and only THEY get to be the ones to determine what our “needs” should be.

      • 2bears May 31, 2017 at 6:12 pm #

        Good points !

    • Mark May 31, 2017 at 4:44 pm #

      Where did you get the percentages you shared for both police and military?

    • Jeff May 31, 2017 at 5:06 pm #

      As a gun owner, I am in support of disarming those convicted of domestic abuse. They should not have guns. The abusers are time bombs just waiting to go off.

      • Bruce May 31, 2017 at 8:11 pm #

        I agree….. and what about pulling the gun at a party in 2014…. looks like they are forgetting about the reason he got in trouble the second time,,,, even if he was licensed to have a gun, pulling it at a party doesn’t sound like good judgement!!!!!

      • Stephen Potts May 31, 2017 at 9:02 pm #

        Same thing with DUIs, finger flickers and spitters.

      • Miles Huggins June 1, 2017 at 1:13 am #

        Iv never been convicted of domestic violence but i know for a fact u can be convicted of it for yelling and punching a hole in your own wall so what constitutes domestic violence much be clarified and some actual unprovoced violence should have to take place to take someones rights. not the somebodys got to go to jail and that someone gets a cdv.

        • Miles Huggins June 1, 2017 at 1:16 am #

          Must be …… and unprovoked is what the previous statement should say.not much be or unprovoced

          • Al June 7, 2017 at 7:28 am #

            What about the woman who is abusive when she drinks? People really don’t see her like this cause she so sweet around them but around her spouse or significant other is just violent and her other just can’t leave her. She calls the cops on 911 drunk and pissed at him the cops come and arrest him cause she has marks from falling cause she’s drunk. Cops don’t want to hear your side cause your a male and you must of done this. I don’t believe in hitting women, But I DON’T BELIEVE IN LOSING MY RIGHTS, there are two sides to every story.

        • DEBBIE July 27, 2018 at 1:58 pm #


    • usa714 May 31, 2017 at 5:15 pm #

      I agree, anyone who convicted of domestic violence should not carry. He’s lucky that was not my daughter, and all of you how disagree with this, shame on you.

    • Hugh June 1, 2017 at 2:15 am #

      Really? For just one “. . . slap, hit, punch . . .”? I’ve had TWO belligerent wives in my time, and clearly wanted to BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THEM, but found the ‘strength NOT to THIS TME. I would agree with you if the abuse was ongoing.

    • Rick June 16, 2017 at 9:23 pm #

      If the Federal court made the ruling, you can bet there is not a federal law a federal law to cover this.

  3. Larry May 28, 2017 at 5:04 pm #

    73 years old, bouncer in several bars, 4 marriages, and all of that time I have never hit a woman. Men who hit women are the lowest and they should never be allowed to own or carry a gun. If a women jumps a man he has a right to defend himself and that’s different. I have been hit several times when I bounced but only wrapped them up and ejected them the bar. So he should not be allowed to carry.

    • Jon May 31, 2017 at 1:44 pm #

      I agree with my prior fellows, especially Larry. If you have a conviction of abuse you should not be permitted to have a firearm which would only permit you to commit a larger offense (hypothetically) .

    • listen3rd May 31, 2017 at 1:56 pm #

      I agree, Larry. I am a Life Member of NRA. No one who abuses or is found guilty of domestic abuse should have a firearm. Too many women have been killed by their abuser.

      • James Powell May 31, 2017 at 3:28 pm #

        I have been in a situation that I was arrested for when I was defending myself from now an x some 28 years ago. When an argue ensued my x the aggressor would throw object at me and pulled a 12 inch butcher knife on me. I grabbed the blade ad she attempted to stab me. I had not layed a finger on her,until I quickly disarmed her.she tried to kick my nuts an I punched her leg away.i really hadn’t done anything to provoke this. But the cops came an I was arrested. I had 18 weeks ,R O R. When all this start I had just got back home from fighting a mobile home fire in the area. She was pissed off at the land lady. I caught the hell ,the mental ********* took it out on me. How ever, I was cleared of any wrong doing. I never lost the right to carry. As I also had been a armed security. People can put you in th ex most damming situations. I used the law to my advantage. And justice to speak. The court requested her to go to conserving with me. She refused, I went. I was proven worthy by state,an it’s a win for me. Good luck people. Use good judgment.

    • Steve Harmon May 31, 2017 at 2:03 pm #

      Another worthless opinion when it comes to my 2A RIGHTS. Get that? My rights will never be affected by your ignorant OPINION. God bless My America!!!!!

      • Scott Christlieb May 31, 2017 at 4:23 pm #

        Ignorant? Okay, I’ll fall for it. So Steve, exactly what level of a convicted violent offender should not be allowed to posses a firearm? A serial killer? A school shooter? How about that coward that recently stabbed those people on a bus? Or is it just the convicted domestic abusers whom you appear to relate to and want to protect?

        • Thomas R. May 31, 2017 at 6:39 pm #

          Sorry Scott , Steve is right . The charge was for ” misdemeanor domestic violence ” not ” Assault or aggravated Assault ” . The bar is pretty low for that one . I agree with all the respondents that a man should never strike a women . However Striking a women would be considered Assault not Misdemeanor domestic violence .

          • Scott Christlieb May 31, 2017 at 9:23 pm #

            Hi Thomas, What is it that Steve Harmon said that you agree with? What is it that he is right about? He didn’t actually say anything other than to express that he thought various participant’s opinions are either “worthless” or “ignorant”.

            …..Which ironically is worthless and ignorant….

            Listen3rd is talking about a convicted violent offender. Not someone who is guilty of a misdemeanor misconduct charge.

            Steve Harmon’s attitude appears to be that no matter what violent crimes he may commit and no matter how many times he commits them he can never lose his 2nd amendment right.

            I am asking him to clarify his position.

            So again Steve, if it is ok for violent offenders to posses a deadly weapon, at what point do you think the American legal system should actually step in to limit or strip a citizen’s right to bear arms?

          • Procius May 31, 2017 at 9:34 pm #

            Got a rule about hitting women ‘Act like a woman, get treated like a woman. Act like a man, get treated like a man’ This rule has worked all my life, I am 75 years old, and have never had to hit a woman yet.

      • 2bears May 31, 2017 at 6:16 pm #

        Hey isn’t this the same court that gave us our most recent SCOTUS justice ?

    • William kelly July 23, 2018 at 5:26 pm #

      Must have bounced in bars where big black women didn’t go buddy my ex wife was 6 3 and 240 belligerent and violent she came home after a night of drinking and fighting and started in on me,tried to hit me with a cast iron skillet so I punched her in the mouth and called the cops told my whole story even had her friend show up to court to verify she was fighting before she went home the entire story in front of a judge and I still get a mdv

  4. Mitt Radates May 31, 2017 at 1:37 pm #

    I served as a volunteer with our local PD’s domestic violence response team. The stories those women and their kids tell makes you cringe and wonder what the hell went wrong with some men’s upbringing. Anyone with a permanent restraining order against them for domestic violence should not have access to firearms. If it’s a temporary restraining order (TRO), then at some point after probation is done and the anger management classes successfully completed, maybe the firearms should be returned. Maybe

    • Lee May 31, 2017 at 2:31 pm #

      The case was for a conviction nothing to do with protective order in the two states I worked as legal advocate at a shelter if convicted of a dv offense you could buy or own a gun. As a GDP dealer when someone purchases a gun one of the questions asks have you ever been convicted of dv crime if yes you do not get gun. Federal law

      • Lee May 31, 2017 at 3:24 pm #

        Meant could NOT buy or own a gun if convicted of a dv offense

    • Mark Campagnola May 31, 2017 at 3:24 pm #

      If someone has a restraining order against them in Colorado, by law, they cannot have or be in possession of any type of weapon.

  5. Boyd Herrst May 31, 2017 at 1:42 pm #

    When I take out aggression I have several old pumpkins and squashes, I ope.n them and pour powdered look aid in . I tape a pic of the one I don’t
    Like and I shoot tge squash or pumpkin and it blows up… that’s as far as the aggression goes. I don’t have to clean up.. it’s in the woods .. animals got to eat too !

  6. Steve May 31, 2017 at 1:44 pm #

    An assault should not automatically take away your constitutional rights. People get into fist fights all the time . You don’t loose any other rights, why all of a sudden do you now lose your 2nd amendment right just because you got into a fight? Government over stepping their bounds! Next you loose your car if you have an accident. The left totally out of control!!!!!!!

    • Other Steve May 31, 2017 at 2:15 pm #

      There is a big difference in fighting another man and abusing women and/or children. Removing an abusive man’s firearm might not end the criminal acts. However, it very well might prevent one of the many family murder-suicide incidents that plague or nation. I am a multiple firearm owner, and an avid reloader/shooter. I am also a firm believer of the Second Amendment. But, I understand that there are certain individuals who don’t deserve to possess firearms.

      • John May 31, 2017 at 2:38 pm #

        Let’s takeaway his driver’s lic too! He could drive off a cliff

        • jaybird May 31, 2017 at 3:21 pm #

          Let the A-Hole drive off the cliff, he is only hurting himself. In Domestic Violence cases usually the women gets killed and maybe the children.

      • Stephen Potts May 31, 2017 at 9:12 pm #

        The problem is that just because you take away a gun from a DV, doesn’t mean he is not going to kill. A hammer, fist or throwing them down the stairs kills just as well. Taking firearms away automatically doesn’t solve the problem, it only prevents one outcome,death by gun.

  7. AJ May 31, 2017 at 1:48 pm #

    Is the Lautenberg Amendment not federal law anymore?

  8. Robroy May 31, 2017 at 1:49 pm #

    So…we’re celebrating this ruling why? I’m a trained and certified gun-carrier with no convictions for smacking a chick and I’m supposed to be happy that d-bags who would smack a woman get to keep their guns??? Why the hell is this a good thing? And before anyone trots out the old domino-theory of escalating gun regulations, let me remind everyone that there’s nothing worse for gun rights than having idiots out there with no training or who use a gun as a substitute for their ego generating negative news stories about gun owners. This is complete bs.

    • Jon May 31, 2017 at 2:02 pm #

      It’s the Law. If he smacked a “chick”, he should face those charges. It is illegal for the states to cross link issues.

      • Femvet May 31, 2017 at 5:06 pm #

        Remember the woman can be the abuser. I have seen that in the Army when the dependent wife was the one who was the bad one. EITHER WAY, anyone who commits domestic abuse or assault of any kind should not be carrying. Plain and simpleUsing a firearm is the next step. Also, a protective order should be automatically issued to the victim. Firm believer in this. Been there to see the hospital calls. Worked ER and OR. Have been shooting for 60+ years.

    • Mark Campagnola May 31, 2017 at 3:29 pm #

      Robroy you hit it right on the head

    • Terry May 31, 2017 at 3:39 pm #

      Apparently everyone thinks women are helpless. You haven’t seen the videos of low class women assaulting people. Many women including the leader of the woman’s march in DC are violent. She sodimized a man with a broom and helped torture him to death. There are some very nasty women who deserve being hit and no I haven’t had to hit any women yet.

  9. Duane Baier May 31, 2017 at 1:52 pm #

    Any man that is found guilty of domestic assault SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A GUN PERIOD. There will come a time we just might use it on his wife.
    I am a 2 addmenment all the way, but there certain people that should not own a gun.

    • Jon May 31, 2017 at 2:06 pm #

      Duane…are you ready to accept cross-linked laws…Have you thought about the slippery slope represented here? There are no limits to the “If / Then” scenarios. IF you get a speeding ticket THEN your right to xxxxxx is void and suspended. Very dangerous indeed…Oregon is in the midst of that exact quagmire.

  10. Brian Faulkner May 31, 2017 at 1:52 pm #

    I don’t see this as a victory for gun rights, it’s more a loss for victims if this to be the law of the land. Hits girlfriend, pulls gun at party….and we’re supposed to be happy this guy gets his guns back….?

  11. Rmmesq May 31, 2017 at 1:56 pm #

    If Pauler’s assault on his girlfriend was a misdemeanor he keeps his guns. Most state laws require a felony conviction for loss of 2 Amendment rights. His was a misdemeanor and did not arise to the level of what would allow state authorities to confiscate his guns. He is a class A ahole for hitting a girl and there are laws on the books that say he should transfer possession during domestic matters that are heated or violent but not permanently. If he brandished the gun at a party that is also a sign he has issues and should get a slap up side his head and a good talking to and may be a crime maybe a felony. I sure hope he grows up. Sounds like he needs a dose of maturity. But taking away his 2A rights permanently – I think not.

  12. Iamedbytes May 31, 2017 at 1:58 pm #

    Domestic abuse when it is a cop is the worst. When going into court a record of abuse is crucial. With a cop his buddies do not arrest or record his abuse. The woman has a hard time getting a restraining order and an even harder time enforcing it.Also you know going in that he is armed and trained in violence.
    A cop should be accountable. He should have his gun taken away while this is being investigated and tried. Good luck unless it is a large department. Small towns are the worst.

  13. Jon May 31, 2017 at 1:59 pm #

    The 10th Circuit Court has it exactly right. Many states keep infringing upon the 2nd Amendment without proper authority which is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. I am glad to see that the 10th Circuit Court remembers the Law of the Land.

  14. Frank Boze May 31, 2017 at 2:04 pm #

    I think you folks that are so bold as to say that “no one can ever hit a women”, really? You mean those women that want to be in combat, Airborne Rangers, Green Snake Eaters, Navy Seals, and the such, you mean those women who think they can do anything a man can do. You really want to start down the path of removing Constitutional rights over a little slap, you kidding me? Removing a Constitutional right is serious stuff, and once you allow the government to remove rights at will you open the door to Tyranny you will never get it closed. So think real hard about trying to remove a persons Constitutional rights, it’s something that must be weighed seriously and with prejudice, it’s much to serious an act over something as unwarranted as a beef between two adults, both which can swing a right hook.

  15. Stuart May 31, 2017 at 2:04 pm #

    I know a couple guys that were being hit by a woman that pushed the ladies back to stop being hit and they got misdemeanor charge against them. Just because they stopped being attacked does not constitute them losing their rights over the lopsided laws. And in this day and age that women march for equality, if they swing then they should be held just as accountable

  16. Darrell May 31, 2017 at 2:16 pm #

    You people are all missing the point. The point of the article is that State law cannot supersede the US Constitution…….and that IS a win for gun owners.

    Now, spouse abusers, child abusers/molesters, etc, should just be taken out and shot, as far as I’m concerned.

  17. SteveB May 31, 2017 at 2:17 pm #

    If you shoot your wife or girlfriend then you WILL go to prison. You cant deny the 2nd Amendment to a citizen because what he Might do with his gun. Enough of our rights are taken from us daily. The unabridged right to own a gun should not be denied to Any Legal American. No permits and regulatations should be attached to the 2nd Amendment. Make people know the law because if you use it and arent justified you WILL go to prison.

  18. SSGJack May 31, 2017 at 2:21 pm #

    A man and a woman have a fight. Words are exchanged and suddenly the man slaps, punches the woman. Bang, no guns for him anymore. This isn’t fair. Everyone sometime in their life has lost their temper and done something they didn’t mean to do or usually do. And some people can use words to hurt even more than a slap or a punch. How about this. If the individual has a history of abuse involving the person they currently abused, or a history of abuse with others, or has a protection order on them, then you suspend their gun rights until there can be a hearing on the matter. I think that would be fair. SSG U.S. Army (RET)

  19. Tom Kelly May 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm #

    Boyd: Be careful…Some a-hole will find a Pumpkin & Squash Protection
    Group and come after you for Abuse, Assault and/or Murder of Innocent members of the peace loving squash family! :-0 Tom, NRA Life Member over 60 years!

    Seriously If all states, Cities, County’s and the Feds followed the Constitution as it was written and intended. They have NO Authority or Jurisdiction whatsoever! What part of “Inalienable
    Rights” don’t they understand. We have been sold out since birth, via a Birth Certificate and Social UnSecurity card!

  20. Ryan May 31, 2017 at 2:25 pm #

    I own a gun shop. While I support the decision that states cannot/ should not make arbitrary laws stripping someone of their constitutional and natural rights, I would never sell a gun to this guy. He punches his girlfriend and then pulls his illegal gun at a party (I think it’s a safe assumption that he didn’t pull the gun in self defense). No way, man. No way would I sell a gun to this tool.

    Question 11i on form 4473 asks “Have you ever been convicted by any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?” Answering yes to that question is an automatic No Sale in our store. I don’t care what the circumstances were.

    • Robert White May 31, 2017 at 2:59 pm #

      Why do you believe you have a right to sell or not to sell a firearm to whom ever whom ever you choose? If they pass the 4473 then honestly it’s none of your G.D.B. and you are in fact violating the 2nd amendment rights of the individual attempting to make the purchase. Scenario, guy allegedly slaps girlfriend(notice I said allegedly) or she hit’s him and he looses it and smacks her back which is a clear case of assault on the part of both parties. Fast forward 10 years, this guy is having his life threatened and has a legitimate need foe self protection do you seriously believe that either the state or you have the right to interfere with his right to stay alive? p.s. I have had a b.s. restraining order against me by a landlord who did it to get me off the property.(women are the worlds biggest liars) During the court hearing the judge made it clear that she should seek professional psychiatric intervention for her self.

  21. Rick Tee May 31, 2017 at 2:27 pm #

    What’s happening to states rights?

  22. Richard Still May 31, 2017 at 2:28 pm #

    Ms. Baier is right. I too am a ccw, veteran, and avid 2nd admenment supporter, men who hit or beat women already have a mental problem, they don’t need a gun!! Unless threatened by a woman with a gun or weapon and bodily harm is immenent, man shouldn’t hit a woman. There are some exceptions.

  23. Vern May 31, 2017 at 2:30 pm #

    My son had his rights taken away because he and girl friend were having an argument. Police were called. There was no abuse, no physical contact whatsoever. He did not even raise his voice. But, he got a misdemeanor charge and lost his right to own here in Colorado. I agree, a physical abuser should not be allowed. But, how this is determined needs to be re-evaluated.

    • Robert White May 31, 2017 at 3:03 pm #

      It’s called sexism and it isn’t right. Almost anytime the cops are called in a domestic situation it is always the guy that gets arrested even if he is lawfully defending himself funny it doesn’t work that way when a male cop restrains or shoots and kills a female suspect. Oh wait that’s right they have cart carte blanche.

  24. Michael May 31, 2017 at 2:30 pm #

    I wholeheartedly agree that if you have a misdemeanor even in a domestic violence situation that you should not lose your gun rights. Let’s not forget slamming doors in your house is now considered domestic violence. No one should lose their right to bear arms over a slammed door. There is also the fact that men get charged for domestic violence even if they are the victims, many times in recent history. I’m happy to see the pendulum move the other way.

  25. Van Phillips May 31, 2017 at 2:42 pm #

    Did everyone miss the point in the first paragraph? “was deemed a prohibited firearms possessor following a “misdemeanor” domestic abuse case. If it was in anyway life threatening it would have been a felony not a misdemeanor.

    Still I agree with Larry!

    When my middle son was about 16, he was in the kitchen arguing with his mother. He had his fist balled up and was leaning toward her in a threatening manor. As I entered from the carpeted dinning room he didn’t hear me coming and he was standing in the doorway facing away. I pushed him, with the flat of my hands, so hard at his shoulder blades that he went across the kitchen and into the counter by the sink. He was so stunned that he barely stayed on his feet, and when he turned around I was there in his face. I said, “You NEVER EVER use your superior size and strength to win and argument … and that goes TRIPLE in an argument with a WOMAN! If you can’t win your point with your brains … then walk away … or you will be dealing with someone like me who is your size or bigger!” He got the point, and so did his brothers.

    In the reverse, in many states you can have your right to firearms taken away if there is a restraining order or mentally incompetent judgement against you. And, many local judges pass those out like popcorn … with no proof at all. So, maybe the 10th District’s decision will help there as well.

    • Stephen Potts May 31, 2017 at 9:33 pm #

      Sorry, but the Second Amendment is a God given right that the government has no right to interfere with.If you want to deal with domestic violence, put the perp in jail, hard time first offense.By letting the government decide who can have a gun is exactly why Obama called veterans domestic terrorists and wanted to take our guns away. Especially combat vets because they all have some form of PTSD according to him!

  26. Duane O. May 31, 2017 at 2:44 pm #

    1.this should be a case by case issue, not a one covers all issue, 2.if you put your hands on someone they will hit you back regardless of your sex . 3.people change over time (most people) something you did in the heat of a moment should not follow you all you life. (just like being a Felon, once you have served your time it should not follow you) if you are that dangerous you should not be back on the street in the first place.and steve is right your rights end where mine start! … my son had back surgery on the lower back, was home a month and he and his girlfriend had an argument, she jumped on his back and he flung her off ( she’s 5’10 140 at the time) she got hurt when she hit the ground … the police were called and guess who went to jail? oh and she was drunk… they took her word.. he had to take a class and it was not put on his record, its not a good law

  27. Dave Jacobs May 31, 2017 at 2:50 pm #

    Misdemeanor charges should never be used where Federal Law takes precedence by definition. In the case of this particular person, his act of striking his girlfriend may be one of local or state law violation of a crime of abuse, or battery, but not involving any part of our firearms laws. Now, when, a few years later, he pulled a firearm at a party he may have been guilty of state and Federal violations. It all depends upon the specifics of the circumstances surrounding of why he pulled a firearm. Did he do it to show his weapon? Did he do it for someone to view and examine? Did he do it out of fear of possible serious bodily harm to himself or another with a force likely to cause serious injury or death? Or did he do it out of simple-minded stupidity?

    Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for stupidity. All laws in this country regarding the threat or use of deadly force require that the circumstances be those of a force just great enough to end the threat against the person or persons. One cannot use a club, knife, gun,
    or other device used as a weapon for a force that can be corrected by less means. (By words, hands, or other physical help.) One can only use just the amount of force necessary to correct the problem; not more.

    Now, the final issue here is the fact that his mentality of a lack of anger management may be the issue. He may have a mental deficiency that would require much rehabilitation to eliminate his tendency of excessive violent acts. As long as indication such as repeated acts that exhibit this problem are being repeated, he may be too mentally unstable to have any firearm, or other deadly weapon.

    Law enforcement should look to charges that would investigate this problem and possibly for a court to declare the person to be mentally unstable and to undergo proper medical intervention of rehab to control. If this is done, he may be cleared to have a weapon, or not. Such declaration against him is the same under all state, and Federal statutes.
    Any type of social psychopathic person can be prohibited under all laws.

    I haven’t found any details of the case here that would indicate that the 10th Circuit Court was right, or wrong with it’s ruling. I would have to believe that the Court did have all those details.

  28. KEITH May 31, 2017 at 2:55 pm #


    • robert May 31, 2017 at 3:45 pm #

      That is how the FEDs operate with the terriorists. If they have not blown up anything yet, they leave them alone. Look at the news on a bunch of these terriorists, they are known by law enforcement but they have not yet committed the crime.

  29. Bill Ernisse May 31, 2017 at 3:03 pm #

    Currently a CCW in the most antigun state, CA, & NRA Golden Eagle. This issue may help separate Fed & local interpretations BUT the individual is a coward with a dangerous complex. There’s no excuse for hitting a woman AND if
    true he pulled a gun out at a party
    (brandishing) when there is no immediate bodily threat of life, is an immature attempt to make mores or whatever. It is fodder for
    Anti-gun people and miss use. It gives real men who carry for the right reason a bad name. This wimp should not be allowed to carry or possess a gun & that has nothing to do with 2nd amendment.

  30. Robert White May 31, 2017 at 3:11 pm #

    Ok this may not be applicable but if the state has no rights to interfere in Federal law i.e. the 2nd amendment then what gives any individual state the right to invoke any restrictions upon any aspect of firearms including but not limited to issuing permits to carry, technically they shouldn’t have any such power. Hell we used to have to get pay $10.00 to our local cop shop to get a permit to acquire up until about 12 years ago.

  31. l stearns May 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm #

    make all the laws you like if someone is going to use a gun against another person no old or new law will stop him or her

  32. Jim Brinkley May 31, 2017 at 4:17 pm #

    They got this wrong! I am as pro gun as it gets, but a conviction for domestic violence should be a lifetime ban on gun ownership. If you read all the facts, domestic violence committers have an extremly high recidivism rate.and typically the crimes get increasingly violent, often endind in death. Under so law, Federal or State, should they ever be allowed to own guns. And that includes leos and military.

  33. Robert Margulies May 31, 2017 at 4:24 pm #

    Just in case some of you come back and reread these, Those of you who complain about the cops should stop and think.
    There’s a reason most folks get beat or shot by cops.
    First , they did something to draw attention
    Second, they didn’t comply with lawful orders.
    Attacking a cop, or pulling a weapon tends to result in badness.
    If you don’t like what the cop did or said, take it to the chief or the mayor.
    But remember, lots of cameras in police cars and on police.
    You better be right when you make a charge.
    Now to the subject: DV laws vary from state to state.
    Maybe that’s a problem, maybe not.
    Felony charges are very clear delineated.
    Legislative intent may be superseded by judicial interpretation.
    Don’t -proverbially- shoot the messenger. I’m just telling it as it is.
    And so there is no question as to where I come from:
    I have 48 years of Emergency Medicine under my belt, 24 years of Active Duty and Spec ops; and I am a Commissioned and Sworn Police Officer and I have seen just about every type of violence that a human being can do to another human or animal, and most of the violence that an animal can do to a human, all on 5 continents.
    And Laws do not prevent violence. They provide a response. Think about it.

  34. Doug Dillon May 31, 2017 at 4:33 pm #

    Bill Ernisse is the only one who got the point. Guy hits a girl earns a dv (msdmnr/flny doesn’t matter). Then he brandishes for no cause. This is a man (boy) who should not be allowed firearm’s.

    Yes the law is flawed, and needs to be restructured. The Court’s went to far on this one now saying he should be allowed a “Third Strike”. Obviously this one’s right should be taken away permanently.

    What to do with other “violaters” is a question that needs to be addressed. When does/should a person “lose” his or her “right to bear”. Needs much smarter men than I to figure that one out.

  35. Doug Dillon May 31, 2017 at 4:38 pm #

    And I am a Lifetime ​NRA, Lifetime USCCA, ex military CCW licensed full time carrier.

  36. Joe May 31, 2017 at 5:13 pm #

    Everyone has an opinion and here is mine. If the parties involved in a domestic abuse situation having personal access to a gun or not is not going to make a difference in the outcome if one party decides the only way to resolve the issue is to end a life . They will find a way!!!

  37. Keith May 31, 2017 at 7:39 pm #

    What about me? I have a 6-month restraining order against me because my ex accused me of pointing a gun at her and threatening to kill her. In fact, all I did was sell all her furniture and personal items after she moved out in the middle of the night into the house of another guy. We proved in court that I was never violent, but the judge felt sorry for her. I had to give up all my guns. I may appeal under this new ruling.

  38. KAZ May 31, 2017 at 7:51 pm #

    Unless a person is in prison or a ward of the state, No person should be stripped of their right to defend themselves. If we can’t trust them to behave, why are they out on the streets! ? Prisons need to be a place of reform or a final removal from society, not just a warehouse with a revolving door.
    We are beginning to slowly treat all citizens as if they are on parole, because we have so many career criminals out there that laws are being aimed at them by punishing the whole population.

  39. Leonce LaRouche May 31, 2017 at 9:18 pm #

    Great, but what about the Fully Liberal 9th Circuit Court, that doesn’t mean they’ll follow to suit, they like to deify federal Laws, especially in Oregon and in the totally blue State of Washington St.! This sick State has just voted in a law if your girl friend suddenly breaks up with you,( without a single punch or slap thrown) and says you need mental help and no matter if it’s a lie, Sorry Charlie your ass is grass! Now the Liberal Hoods can come into your house and confiscate all your guns, and you have to pay to have the order reversed if you win in court and pay all court costs, VERY EXPENSIVE!! Not only that but suffer the embarrassment of your good name being trampled through the Courts. I’m a bit leery about this news, if it comes into play everywhere through out the country than fine, but until then it’s status Quo for Washington St. i’m afraid!

  40. David May 31, 2017 at 9:26 pm #

    A felony conviction would have met federal law to prohibit gun possession in most cases, but misdemeanor convictions are not included in federal law. I think this ruling will apply to national concealed carry law when enacted. States will have to honor your concealed carry permit in all 50 States and Territories.

  41. Stephen Potts May 31, 2017 at 9:50 pm #

    States abuse laws because citizens elect the wrong leaders. Instead of complaining, become involved and call out the crooked ones and let others know. They will be voted out just like Muslim Obama, and hopefully replaced by honest people.I’m 63 years old and when I was a kid the cops were your hero’s and the leaders could be trusted to protect us all.Now it’s really screwed up.The leaders are the biggest crooks you can imagine and the cops are portrayed as racist jackbooted thugs who like to pound on people or just shoot the blacks. Loss of morality is the real problem.

  42. cody June 1, 2017 at 7:57 am #

    You can be put on a domestic abuse no contact (lose gun rights) even if no contact was ever made- NO physical contact. The other side just has to have a fear you will. I kow because it happened to me. When my Constitutional rights can be stripped by another persons feelings that is screwed up.

    • Racer X May 26, 2018 at 6:29 pm #

      I hear ya Cody. Most of these people have no idea what they’re talking about. The law is called the Lautenberg ammendment. It is a federal law and is totally unconstitutional. A misdemeanor domestic violence conviction does not mean you are a wife beater. Like people have said before on this thread, if you actually hit a woman and causedamage bodily harm that would be a felony, NOT A MISDEMEANOR. The problem is stupid people making judgments on something that they do not understand. The end

  43. James Blythe June 5, 2017 at 2:27 pm #

    Definitely agree with the judge. My son was charged with a misdemeanor domestic abuse charge and his guns (2 hunting rifles) were taken away from him. His interest is being able to hunt not being able to carry any other type of firearm. Prior to this ruling he was restricted. But, this should open his opportunity to obtain another rifle.

  44. Caliell October 29, 2017 at 10:27 am #

    A lot of you here saying “Well I am against domestic abusers who beat their wives” but reality is you can easily be convicted of Misdemeanor of Domestic Violence. Even with diversion given for misdemeanor, this is guaranteed bar from every single career that involves possession of a firearm. Military automatically deems diversion cases as guilty plea and therefore conviction. If a service member even calls his wife fat in yelling match and the wife calls cops on him, then that’s it. Congratulations, if kicked a chair over during argument, punched a wall, or called your wife fat, say good bye to your entire career. Those are grounds for automatic arrest. If this is police officer, they will be immediately sent behind desk.

    A lot of you keep saying that this couldn’t happen to you, with the problem everyone is guilty of “Domestic Violence” blanket since it involves both verbal and physical violence, which means at anytime anyone could be arrested. This does not include just wife and husband, or boyfriend and girlfriend either. This also applies to roommates, and other relatives such as brothers, mothers, fathers, uncles, grandparents etc.

    If you ever got in a fight with your parents or spanked your child or yelled at either kids or your wife or girlfriend, congratulations according to Lautenberg Amendment you are domestic abuser and therefore should not be carrying a firearm.

  45. Kdubz October 29, 2017 at 3:38 pm #

    This law is terrible. I do not believe that someone that beats his wife should have a gun but the abuse of domestic laws is rampant. Two people arguing ends in s loss of 2nd amendment rights. Two brothers wrestling in a front yard, a women trying to gain leverage in a divorce. All these are happening. Misdemeanor is generally not someone who sent a spouse to the hospital. It’s yelling, a push, door slam., Broken dishes. Lautenberg was a fool.

  46. James Page December 5, 2017 at 12:29 am #

    I lost my 2nd amendment rights for handing my ex her car keys…. keep saying it was made just for wife beaters because good people who want to protect themselves like myself are affected

  47. John December 17, 2017 at 2:15 pm #

    I think a lots of people here see someone with a Domestic Violation as all the same. Like the son in law in the “God Father”. Clearly someone like that should have his rights remove. Maybe some here don’t know the Amendment was expanded in 2014 to include shoving, yelling, and just basically anything you do while arguing. Yes I’ll agree this guy is a very poor example. But the law is to far reaching. And the consequences to severe. The Lautenberg Amendment doesn’t need to be done away with. Just made more fair. Lots of people at some point in their life may be pushed to the point of losing control for an instant and never let it happen again. A more fair law would be maybe the first time lost of the right to have a gun for ten years. (Still a pretty severe penalty if you ask me) Then if it happens again, lost for good. Remember, for Liberals this is just a beginning. They have said already they want your guns too. Next will it be for anyone who ever had a DUI? After all ‘They can’t be trusted with a car so can they be trusted with a Gun?’ Then next, Speeding Tickets? People who believe in the Second Amendment should band together. Not throw others under the bus just because something doesn’t apply to you.

  48. M Smith January 17, 2018 at 3:01 pm #

    I’d like to point something out. For all of you saying that anyone charged with a domestic violence should have their gun rights taken away, I guarantee you’ve done something in your lifetime that could now be considered domestic violence. The way the law works today, even if your neighbors think you’re arguing, it doesn’t matter whether you were or not, they are taking someone to jail and charging them with domestic violence, if the police are called. Any yelling, bumping, even having your television too loud, slamming a door too loud, can get you a domestic violence charge. Then, not only do you lose your right to bear arms, forever, you also will never be able to adopt a child in 37 or 38 of the 50 United States! How is it right to continue to punish someone for the rest of their life for something as petty as yelling or slamming the door? You don’t think this could happen? Think again. I was the supposed “victim” of just such a case.

  49. Sean March 30, 2018 at 5:55 pm #

    In Colorado, a misdemeanor conviction of destruction of property can be tagged domestic violence. An example would be damaging a door or punching a wall during an argument with your girlfriend. Crimes against property are equivalent to crimes against person?!

Leave a Reply