[Malum Prohibitum]

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/SB/250

SB 250 prohibits a person going through a divorce from purchasing firearms without receiving the permission of the judge presiding over the divorce. SB 250 would not affect guns already owned when the divorce was filed.

Punishment for violation = up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine

 

[Phil1979]

I guess someone in that boat needing a gun for protection could pay a friend or family member to borrow one until their divorce is final, or borrow it for free. Or make a down payment without ownership changing until the divorce is final.

 

[JohnH]

So let me get this straight, if you are going through divorvce proceedings and already have guns they won't do anything to prevent your use thereof, but if during those proceedings you go out and buy one with a judges permission you will be assumed to be buying it to murder your spouse? And what of those who are divorcing as a result of domestic violence, who have never owned a gun, had threats made against them on a Friday night by their estranged spouse. Are they to then wait until Monday when the judge is back from his fishing trip to ask permission to defend themselves?

What kind of logic do these people have

 

[phaed]

So let me get this straight, if you are going through divorvce proceedings and already have guns they won't do anything to prevent your use thereof, but if during those proceedings you go out and buy one with a judges permission you will be assumed to be buying it to murder your spouse? And what of those who are divorcing as a result of domestic violence, who have never owned a gun, had threats made against them on a Friday night by their estranged spouse. Are they to then wait until Monday when the judge is back from his fishing trip to ask permission to defend themselves?

What kind of logic do these people have

government is never about logic; the existence of one denies the very possibility of the other.

 

[CoffeeMate]

(Transferred from another thread)

Video at link...
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22670020/gun-violence-rally-held-in-atlanta

They talk about this as if they're trying to stamp out polio or something.

So... Felons, no guns. Mentally ill, no guns... Those with wives who are about to file for divorce, no guns -- and not just no new purchases, we'd have to go confiscate them before she can file for divorce, right?

What about the untold numbers of people who go through a divorce with no gun violence whatsoever? Gotta leave them all defenseless in the face of violent crime too, right? ... Maybe not the wives, that is. They still need their guns 'cause of those evil husbands. In fact, better just lock up all the husbands whenever a woman is unhappy, just to be sure... right?

:facepalm:

'Cause you know, it's everyone else who has to pay for her marrying a psycho... (or for turning him into a psycho).

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/1...e?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitter_share

Seven years ago, I finally got the nerve to leave my abusive husband. After a particularly nasty assault, I went to the police and got a protective order against him, hoping that would help keep my infant daughter and me safe.Protective orders should prevent domestic abusers from buying guns. But in Michigan, as in the majority of states, it is so easy to buy a gun online or from a private seller, no questions asked. My decision to involve law enforcement slowed him down only marginally.

In most states, the law has not kept up with the times. Convicted domestic abusers who are married to, live with, or have a child with their victim cannot pass a background check. But if an abuser is just a dating partner, their ability to buy a gun remains unrestricted. That's what's known as "the boyfriend loophole," and it is deadly. Additionally, some states have what's known as a "surrender policy," which requires abusers to give up their guns when they're convicted of domestic violence. That, too, seems like an obvious step. I would love to hear the candidates discuss it.

 

[UtiPossidetis]

Or, alternately, it could be the case that the spouse was rabidly anti-gun and now that the couple has split the potential purchaser no longer is restrained by domestic considerations from buying what they have desired for some time.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

This will imped women who receive threats from their estranged husbands from immediately going out and buying a gun for protection.

 

[UtiPossidetis]

This will imped women who receive threats from their estranged husbands from immediately going out and buying a gun for protection.

But women are smarter and therefore know that owning a gun and being a woman is a formula for disaster. It could only be taken from them and used against the, therefore no woman would be silly enough to fall prey to the notion that owning a gun makes them more secure. :screwy:

 

[CoffeeMate]

This will imped women who receive threats from their estranged husbands from immediately going out and buying a gun for protection.

No, no. This targets those others, the abusive males from whom the women need protecting. This is about HELPING women, not impeding them.

Nevermind that it is not worded that way. Nevermind that it makes no gender distinction. Nevermind all that fact-based "have to actually live this reality" stuff. Nevermind any Constitutional problems, injustice or inequities.

Don't you WANT to help these poor abused women?

[/sarcasm]

Everything is easy when all you're doing is "stating wishes" regarding those other people.

 

[Craftsman]

I cant wait for this to impact same-sex domestic partners.

 

[psrumors]

Punishment for violation = up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine

It seems our state reps love the phrase "up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine".

Why are they so gung ho about locking people up? The local dump has a new sign up, cover your load or "up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine". Seems that is the GA way

 

[GM404]

It seems our state reps love the phrase "up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine".

Why are they so gung ho about locking people up? The local dump has a new sign up, cover your load or "up to one year in jail and a $1000 fine". Seems that is the GA way

That's just speak for "misdemeanor." Pretty much any misdemeanor can result in the 365 days in JAIL and $1,000 fine...even for doing 5 over the speed limit. If it's a term over a year, that's usually a felony and PRISON time.

Also, I see this bill was pre-filed almost a year ago and has gone no where...so any reason for the necrospost?

 

[codegeek]

Applying for a driver's license should be a felony in Georgia, that way, we just get it over with.

 

[CoffeeMate]

...so any reason for the necrospost?

Just trying to help a brother out.

 

[moe mensale]

Applying for a driver's license should be a felony in Georgia, that way, we just get it over with.

That's almost logical! :lol:

 

[EJR914]

This will imped women who receive threats from their estranged husbands from immediately going out and buying a gun for protection.

How about the crazy family of the wife or the crazy wife herself? Works both ways. Including crazy father in laws that threaten violence.

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

 

[EJR914]

Applying for a driver's license should be a felony in Georgia, that way, we just get it over with.

The bureaucrats all agree. :rotfl: