Flashback
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Remember when I worried that the new Domestic Abuse legislation would let cops seize guns on a mere allegation from a spouse? I was wrong, and Andrew was right, about the wording of that legislation.
But the Eid case that I sent you illustrates the difference between that the law SAYS and how the law is ENFORCED.
The cops in the Eid case claimed – and the HennCo prosecutor argued in court – that taking a person to lock-up for a 72-hour hold on the fear that he might be a danger to himself or others, was legally identical to a judicial finding of mental illness sufficient to commit a person to a mental hospital after a full-blown commitment trial; therefore, loss of gun rights.
No, that’s not what the law says. But that’s how HennCo enforces it.
Unless you can afford a great lawyer to fight the system, it doesn’t matter what the law says, it only matters what the law does to you. I was wrong about the wording. But was I right about the risk?
Joe Doakes
Como Park
that is always the kicker, with any law: governments in force laws any damn way they please. Or, as the Obama administration has shown us, if they care to do it at all.
October 3rd, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Related only because it involves guns and domestic relationships…
Hey law talkin’ guys (like you Mr Doakes) – how does the guy that killed his former boyfriend and business partner in a convenience store parking lot (including a tap to the head when the first shots failed to terminate); who then went on the lam causing local law enforcement to break out every piece of ex-military gear they had in their arsen…, er, uh, inventories in the hunt for him; and who was on the run, robbed a bank (allegedly) and played the slots with his bank dye tainted money for nearly a month only get charged with 2nd degree intentional murder? Seems like it was pretty much planned out – doesn’t that make it 1st degree?