The Irony Of Detroit Gun Violence Interventionists

In the Detroit Free Press, there's an article about a rally against gun violence, as they are of course blaming guns for criminal's actions and the fact that criminal violence and assaults, often over trivial matters are very much on the rise in the D.

The Detroit Free Press: Shootings over simple disputes on the rise, Detroit interventionists say

It's mostly pay-walled, but the photos accompanying the article are not.

The irony of course is because of one of the featured speakers depicted in the article:

o

Sam Riddle.  

Sam Riddle talking against gun violence.

The very same Sam Riddle who himself was sentenced to two years for firing off a shotgun in a "simple dispute" - being caught in bed with another woman by his "live in companion" and then shooting at his companion with a shotgun.

So yes, Sam Riddle would surely know all about inappropriately using guns during a simple dispute. 

In the D, even violent felonies, even involving firearms and violence against women - two things Democrats profess to be against - don't stop Democrat politicians from being considered respected (and of course paid) heads of Democrat organizations rather than placed beyond the pale for their actions.

You just can't make this up.

Detroit Busts State Firearms Preemption

Detroit Just passed a Gun Control Ordinance.

The Detroit Free Press: Convicted of domestic violence and living in Detroit? You could lose your gun.

Of course it's all for the purported noble reason of taking guns from domestic abusers.

The problems with it are multi-fold:

First under Federal law, the Lautenberg Amendment, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence already can't possess firearms so the law is duplicative.

Next,  it likely would not have prevented the death of the female police Sargent killed by her domestic partner. After all, it's not like he respected the Federal prohibition and it didn't stop him, so it's highly unlikely a city ordinance will do much more.  

After all it's not like he has to fear much from the Detroit area justice system.  After all, after killing her he was then let out on  bond.  If a Wayne County judge won't keep a suspect of the murder of a police officer in jail, does anyone expect a judge will do much with someone convicted of a misdemeanor dv found with a firearm violating the ordinance?

More problematic is what you and I may think of domestic violence - namely a spouse / significant other / dating partner beating another spouse / significant other / dating partner is only a fraction of what gets defined as domestic violence under the law.

I've seen domestic violence convictions when brothers get involved in a scrap outside the home and the police get called.  Since they live in the same home, yep the assault conviction becomes a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. 

I've also seen charges brought claiming domestic violence for issues that really didn't quite fit what the average person thinks would be domestic violence.  including prosecutions of a spouse who confiscated illegal drugs from his spouse and flushing them down the toilet to stop her form using them - she called the police to complain, and since there was physical contact when the drugs were grabbed, he got charged with domestic violence.  Yep, no kidding.

Next and also rather problematic the ordinance violates Michigan's state level preemption on local units of government passing firearms laws.  Under MCL 123.1102:

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

 Pretty straightforward that it's preempted by state law and  should be overturned on that basis alone. 

While no one wants actual domestic abusers to possesses firearms and be able to attack their domestic others, the ordinance is a foot in the door for further game playing by the City of Detroit in the firearm arena and needs to be opposed for that reason.

There's A Reason Charges Are Laid In DV Situations Even if The Victim Won't Make A Complaint

I get a call today from a potential client regarding representation in a domestic violence matter.

Turns out the caller is the victim of the alleged dv'er calling and maintaining that it's all just a misunderstanding and she wants the no contact order entered by the judge lifted.

So I ask her what happened and she said the police came when they overheard her and her husband through her panic button and she hadn't called them but they came and took her husband away for no reason.

Yep, police take people away for no reason all the time.

Oh and the case has already been completed, he has already been convicted and sentenced, yet again (No, it's not his first time at this for those of you following along) for DV, and there's a no contact order in place and she wants to talk to him and see him again.

After all, according to her just because he was grabbing her by the throat at the time and smashing things doesn't mean he was being violent to her. She maintains that he's not violent to her . . . when he's not drinking.

This has according to her been going on now for about 20 years or more.

Oh and did I mention the caller is 70 years old?

This particular DV pattern has been going on for a long, long time.

I explain to her as gently as possible that trying to set aside a no contact order in such a situation would really not be in her best interests or her safety. Quite simply, I'm not going to do it for her.

She then says he just filed for divorce as someone told him if he files for a divorce then they're no longer married and he can be with her again and the no contact order disappears. I tell her that is really not how it works.

She's rather upset that he would divorce her and possibly get the house and such, after all he's only violent when he drinks and "they" just need to keep him away from alcohol - apparently, however, "they" haven't had much a successful track record in keeping him away from alcohol so far.

I tell her she needs a good divorce lawyer, and since I do not do divorce law I refer her on to some good ones. I also recommend she should probably go talk to a therapist about the situation as she does need help and she's not at fault for the situation. Hopefully some of that got through, but I'm just not overly optimistic.