Brady Act Invoked to Prohibit Divorcees From Owning Guns

TheTimesOnline of Northwest Indiana ^ | July 31, 2002 | Bob Kasarda

[phasma proeliator]

Well - WTF?
Yet another way to take away guns?
Ping!

[dead]

This also adds incentive for an angry spouse of a gun owner to exact revenge by falsely claiming they were subjected to threats or abuse.

That will really make for less messy and vindictive child custody cases, won't it?

"For the children."

[Ancesthntr]

While some attorneys intentionally may seek to trigger the Brady Act...

No kidding! Of course it is used intentionally. Mary and John Smith are having a really bad divorce, though no violence or threats have ever been made either way. John owns some guns, and Mary knows that he values them and his 2nd Amendment rights. Now suppose that John and Mary have a big disagreement on some piece of property, or on the terms of the custody agreement. Tell me - what lawyer wouldn't use Brady against John? Not one.

The solution, at least until the Lautenberg amendment gets repealed (if ever), is to move to the jurisdiction of the 5th US Circuit Court. The Emerson decision offers protection against this nonsense.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Very interesting article! Unless I misread it, the Webber is trying to insure that divorce lawyers do not inadvertently trigger the Brady (puke) Act for divorces not involving abuse or violnece. He appears to be trying to make sure they don't accidently lose their RKBA rights.

[dead]

Yeah, Webber is the good guy here.

But by pointing out the unintended consequences of this crappy law, he will undoubtedly inspire some unscrupulous lawyers (redundant redundant) to exploit it.

[lideric]

This sounds like the type of case that needs to go to the supreme court so this stupid law can be struck down. That is, if this is really true.

[middie]

Judges in Florida frequently require participants in adversarial dissolutions of marriage (divorce in most states) to divest themselves of all firearms. When individuals are involved in emotional situations like these it often makes very good sense to remove the temptation to give in to a very bad--albeit transitory--impulse. One of my parnters does domestic cases and is very happy when the judge orders the parties to surrender their guns until the stressful period subsides and they are not tempted to cause harm to an adversarial spouse or the lawyer(s).

[weegee]

Better grab their cars too or they may use them to run over their ex-spouse. Better take away their phones too as they may use it to call a hit man.

[Kaisersrsic]

You partner must not have been there on the day the rest of us swore to uphold the Constitution.

[nothingnew]

Better grab their cars too or they may use them to run over their ex-spouse.

Or their soon to be ex-spouse, who might run over them 3 times and then park the beamer on top of them...who knows?...it could happen.

FMCDH

[buffyt]

When my sister divorced her first husband she slept with a gun under her pillow, because he was wacko and had a BAD temper. She moved to another state and remarried. But thank God she kept that gun by her side at night. She did find her ex-husband sneaking around her house one night after they separated, looking in the windows. Later he said he was making sure she didn't have another man there -- she didn't! But he knew she had a gun, maybe that is why she is still alive and happy 12 years later! He was 6'5" and she is about 5'4" and without a gun he could have beaten her up pretty badly. He had punched his fist into walls and a door, when he was high and angry. I hope he recovered from all of his problems too! We don't keep in touch.

[buffyt]

There is a lot more to that dentist killer case. Now in Houston they are saying the mistress was part of a Lesbian ring that stalks rich men and uses them for their money. Dr. Harris was not a smart man.

[buffyt]

Well you can take her gun but if she still has a Mercedes she can still kill you.

[SUSSA]

The Brady Act is violence. It is a violent assault on our basic right to be armed. Any court or juror who would uphold Brady is advancing tyranny pi$$ing on our Bill of Rights.

[mercy]

Gentlemen ignore this at your peril. If you know that you are soon to be divorced or you want to dump the lady ... run out and file a restraining order FIRST. Because she will certainly file one on you as it comes in real handy with the judge. Better yet, don't marry at all. It's a suckers game.

[Draakan]

This is all old news. This was snuck in the Brady after the Brady Bill was passed by Socialist Clinton, and the ant-gun cronies. What is surprising is that more people didn't raise hell when it happened, and some people still don't know about it.

[nickcarraway]

ping

[Shooter 2.5]

"It is important to be careful when triggering the Brady Act, she said, particularly when it involves police officers, security guards or others who must carry a gun for a living.

Nothing new here. We know that a police officer would never lay a hand on their spouse.

[parsifal]

This kind of crap might go over in California, but it won't happen in Arkansas. parsy.