-=> Quoting DAVID R. NORTON to ALL on 26 Aug 96  10:09 <=-
 Re: Here we go again... 
 DRN> Nah, let's talk about guns.
 DRN> Today's paper said Bubba wants to not allow convicted wife abusers buy
 DRN> handguns.  What next?
Notice - MISDEMEANOR abusers, both spousal and child! A misdemeanor 
typically is *anything* where the penalty is under a year in prison
(including merely a fine).
As I said before (elsewhere), if it's real (serious) abuse, it should be
a felony. In some places, you could be charged with misdemeanor abuse for 
disciplining you child in public (and presumably for hitting your wife - 
even if it's the first time ever - in public). Plus for spousal abuse, 
you don't necessarily have to be married in many jurisdictions.
Plus of course, we have many cases on the books of a person being charged 
with spousal abuse even if the state had no evidence that injuries were 
caused by the spouse. Many people may have misdemeaanor abuse charges 
because it was less expensive to pay the fine than to fight the charges 
in court.
If we agree that felons who've served their time can't buy guns (which 
I'm not so sure about), does a *misdemeanor* make sense? If so, why not 
for other misdemeanors (like speeding perhaps)?
Sorry, I still have to say that if it's a serious crime it should be a 
felony. In which case, there is no reason to expand Brady. I can't see 
anyone being able to argue otherwise unless their intent is simply to 
find another group of people to restrict from owning guns.
Next question - does whatever records the sheriff consults for Brady even 
record misdemeanors? If not, how expensive will this change be?
Steve
... An armed society is a polite society.
--- GEcho 1.00
---------------