General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have an arrangement with a former Marine. Big burly dude.
Should my life go sideways he is to come to my house and secure all my firearms and lock them away where they are inaccessible to me.
Well, today I did that for someone else.
Domestic life is in turmoil and finances are really kinda messed up. Funny how those things seem to come together as a pair.
Anyway, after a big blowup where things that shouldn't have been said were said at a volume that was way too high we were called in to intervene. We're not professionals but we know these people well enough to talk them both down. An hour of tears, recriminations and finger pointing finally exhausted them both and they talked to each other like people who actually want to make things work.
Crisis avoided for another day. It's not over but it's down to an ongoing conversation and we're on speed dial.
I walked him out to his car as he was going to bid a job so we could talk out of ear shot and I said, "Look, don't take this wrong, I don't think there's a bad bone in your body but I would feel better if you'd loan me your guns for awhile." We talked about emotions being high and breaking points and things that you truly can't take back. We went back inside and he gave me his guns and ammunition for safe keeping without an argument. The guns are now securely locked in my personal gun-safe and we've agreed that when jobs are found and the pressure is off I'll bring them back.
It takes a lot to face someone in situations like this and even more to broach the subject of possible harm. It's a delicate balance of offering help without seeming to accuse. The fact that everything went so quietly means that things would have probably been okay anyway but I feel better even if nobody else does. Ask any cop how they feel about domestic calls.
Don't know why I'm posting this. Maybe just bleeding off some emotion.
voteearlyvoteoften
(1,716 posts)PJMcK
(22,037 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,007 posts)Warpy
(111,277 posts)there wouldn't be as much carnage out there with whole families shot to pieces.
Unfortunately, this is a fragmented, alienated country where people are often isolated.
Thanks for being a bigger friend than this guy will ever realize.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)A lot of people who had been wounded by guns or who knew or researched the facts about those who had been killed by guns filled out a questionnaire. They put in as many demographic factors and other factors as they could trying to determine what were the factors that were most statistically related to gun injury and death.
And one factor was by far higher on the list than any other. Was it salary? mental status? age?
The factor that most predicted being wounded or killed by guns BY FAR was one thing: gun ownership.
And yet as soon as the latest massacre happens, there's a rush by people to buy more guns. Does this compute? Duh?
Loki
(3,825 posts)we need strong shoulders to lean on, and a cool head to listen. Thank you for being that person at a time when someone needed that.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Dem_in_Nebr.
(301 posts)Johnyawl
(3,205 posts)Well done. I hope for the best for your friends.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)seriously
airplaneman
(1,239 posts)PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)Having guns in the house is the single biggest factor in being killed or wounded by a gun. Which is really, really odd if you think about it. I thought it was just random strangers -- illegal immigrants from Mexico mostly -- who were responsible for most of the gun deaths.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But I also am glad to see this kind of thing happen.
Aviation Pro
(12,172 posts)...you are a true friend.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)And priceless friend. Good for you.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)A friend of mine went through several years of unstable behavior, depression, fighting with her husband, etc. She told me one time she took her pistol with her as she left the house. She was going to go somewhere and kill herself, but thinking about her kids stopped her.
Another time they argued and she got her gun (WTF?) and, she said, accidentally discharged it. She was lucky it didn't go through a wall and really hurt or kill a family member. The police were called and took away that one gun, not realizing they had other guns in a safe. She had to go to court to get her gun rights restored.
I don't understand why her husband puts up with this crap, or why he lets her have a deadly weapon available. I haven't talked to her in four years, so I really don't know if she hasn't killed someone or herself yet. I wish someone would protect her from herself.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Great guys. Thanks to both of you for you compassion and help.
OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)I'm an EMT in a rural Virginia county. I wish we had people like you here.
In the past week, we have had two shootings that started as "domestic disputes." One incident left one dead and one wounded, the second incident left two wounded, one life-threatening.
In both cases, the arguing had gone of for a couple of days and finally reached the breaking point. If only someone had been here to take away the guns. . . .
phylny
(8,380 posts)The most recent death I know of was a woman who lives within 5 miles of me in Huddleston. Gunman killed himself after killing her.
I'm in and out of homes constantly for my job. A few months ago, while visiting a family, I had to remind the dad to put the gun that was on the end table near the couch away since his BABY DAUGHTER is now crawling and pulling up to stand.
"Oh, yeah."
I can't deal with this crap.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...always.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I don't know where you are, but in any of the states that have "universal background checks" your taking the guns would constitute an illegal transfer, and to be legal you would have had to wait until a gun store was open, go do paperwork, pay $25-50 per gun for fees and then take them- and repeat the paperwork and fees to return them.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)they way the law reads in some states.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)these circumstances. Preventing domestic violence is different from 'loaning' a gun someone for recreation or to circumvent the background check. That's where judicial discretion come in and judges have, in most cases, wide latitude.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Which makes "universal"... Not.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Universal checks. Period. Judicial discretion for prosecution is an established function of law enforcement. I know some gun rights advocates can't see anything but black or white but there are far more shades of grey than 50.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)NJ you would be hard pressed to find a prosecutor and/or judge that wouldn't prosecute. An exception would be for an FFL storing firearms (but not transferring) or a gunsmith repairing them. You might have a case with rifles or shotguns but probably not handguns. This is NJ though.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)By the books, it was illegal in those states.
It boils down to intent. Now let's say in the near future the spouse goes and obtains a restraining order. Of course the question of guns comes up, and the spouse day later that he suddenly "loaned" them all illegally.
Was that a good faith attempt to keep a person safe, or was it an attempt to keep the guns from being siezed temporarily by the police after a restraining order was issued? What way will the other angry spouse describe it, knowing that it was illegal and maybe hoping to get their spouse arrested and out of their way for a few days or to make their case look better in divorce court?
And of course the question will be asked "if you didn't intend to break the law why didn't you go complete the transfer legally the next day?" Boom- if that wasn't done it throws any argument that the law had to be broken out of expediency out the window.
Or they will simply tell the Jury "the way they did it was a felony, all he had to do was call the police department and they would have come and taken them to keep it legal".
It could easily be prosecuted. There is no question in fhose states it's an illegal transfer, and it all boils down to intent. It could just as easily be spun as a person trying to hide the guns from police confiscation because a restraining order was coming as it could a noble act, and the lack of follow up to go make it legal as soon as a gun shop opened would call into question the intent if not done.
Hopefully this is all a moot point and the original poster lives in a state not requiring UBC- but this is an example of how badly written UBC laws turn people trying to do the right thing into felons.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)One persons noble act to a friend is a prosecutors criminal act that was done to hide the guns from police because a restraining order might be coming.
FWIW as a deputy I did charge people with attempting to evade court orders to temporarily turn over firearms as part of restraining orders by "loaning" them to friends. It wasn't a UBC state so it wasn't the transfer that was charged but other ones.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gunners have been against them for decades. Fact is, the OP did his buddy a favor and no prosecutor would waste time with this case because this was not a "loaning" case where some racist yahoo gun owner is trying to evade confiscation. Rather than spreading NRA inspired BS, you guys ought to be applauding the OP.
hack89
(39,171 posts)And would never consider applying the law differently based on things like race, religion and sexual orientation? Ok.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)not some criminal intent. If rationality were a requirement to owning guns, we wouldn't have a problem with the dang things.
The entire anti- gun movement is based on moral panic and dire predictions of things that never actually happen. Your comment on rationality broke my irony meter. Factless fear mongering and broadbrush bigotry are all too common here regarding anti-gun posts.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)who is a threat to themselves and others.
The fact you guys are into guns is proof of paranoia, fear mongering, fear of the boogeyman, etc.
No one is going to make a case out of the scenario in the OP -- I'd call that irrational "moral panic," but it's darn sure panic that someone might emasculate you by indirectly impinging on your ability to arm up with more weapons.
I do know for a fact, gunners like this are not good for our country:
?w=460
hack89
(39,171 posts)They have a large and vibrant gun culture. Is it because you approve of theirs?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)apparently don't need a gun strapped to their body to feel manly, right wing gun sites and the NRA post photos of minorities with gunz to scare whites into purchasing more guns, gunz are largely promoted by white wing racists, etc . . . .why do you care?
hack89
(39,171 posts)If that's the case, why should you care?
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Abramski was a retired cop who was eligible for discount pricing on a gun. His uncle, who was a law abiding person legally allowed to buy and own a gun, gave him money to buy a gun for him in order to buy the gun at a discounted price.
Since his uncle lived in another state Abramski followed the law and sent the pistol to a dealer in another state who properly conducted a background check and did the paperwork documenting the transfer.
Abramski was prosecuted for making a straw purchase because they said he was not the real buyer of the gun.
The case reached the Supreme Court who upheld the conviction.
There was no criminal intent, no prohibited person got the gun, no background checks skipped-it was just a guy trying to get a better price for his uncle. Keep saying "they would never prosecute" for examples like these and you will just be shown wrong- they took this case all the way to SCOTUS.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)their approval. Of course, you failed to mention that the former police offer swore under penalty of law that he was buying the gun for himself. And the only reason an issue was raised is that the former police officer was suspected of robbing a bank and his house was searched where the receipt was found.
Some other facts: Question 11.a. on the form asks: Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Abramski's answer to this question was yes, which was fraudulent.
After passing the background checks, and receiving the gun, Abramski contacted a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) in Pennsylvania, which conducted its own background check on Alvarez, and than proceeded to transfer the gun to Alvarez, through the FFL.
My guess is, his conviction on the gun charge, which was just probation, was probably related to the bank robbery suspicion.
In any event, this is not similar to taking a person's guns when they agree and are a threat to themselves and others (which or course, I believe most gunners are).
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And that shows intent doesn't always matter when it comes to prosecution.
By the letter of the law both examples are crimes.
People who mindlessly push for so-called "universal background checks" need to know what they advocate includes making good and wise moves like the original poster did criminal acts, and your instance it would never be prosecuted because their heart was in the right place can't be counted on 100% and isn't a legal basis for not prosecuting.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Of a jilted spouse who presented anything and everything as bad as possible to the magistrate or court to try and make their case better.
Shadier divorce lawyers will advise them to do this, and go get a restraining order painting anything they can in as bad a light as possible. They will have clients go down and claim they fear for their safety based on the presence of firearms, claim the spouse is paranoid, violent, whatever else.
I've actually seen it happen where a man gave his firearms to his dad to lock up as he was clearing out his valuables and the douse spun it as "he is hiding the guns so they won't get taken because he knows I am getting a restraining order" so I know how these things can be spun from actual experience. And in most states it is the person who gets to the magistrate or court first whose version of events sets the stage and the other person has to prove different in the courtroom.
7962
(11,841 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Even temporary transfer of possession is banned except in very, very limited circumstances usually involving direct family.
It would have been a felony under the proposed Toomey-Manchin bill too.
7962
(11,841 posts)If thats the case, its ridiculous & rarely enforced
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)For example Washingtons new UBC law is written in a way that criminalizes teaching gun safety by handing a firearm to a person for the purpose of instruction unless it is at an approved range or done by government officials. The state hurriedly reclassified volunteer instructors at hunters safety courses as "employees" for this purpose but that still left problems as the law only exempts "transfers" to and from a government employee in that case.
So in Washington state in an official hunters safety class an instructor may hand a firearm to a student in the classroom, and that student may hand it back. But if that student hands that firearm to another student even for a second that is a criminal act as an illegal transfer.
Sound absurd? It is.
Toomey-Manchin was full of similarly absurd stuff. For example there was an exemption for lending a firearm for hunting but only "at a time and place where hunting is legal". While people not familiar with hunting laws might take that to mean during hunting season (and likely what the person who authored it who didn't understand hunting and firearm laws thought) in fact there are many more restrictions that come into play. For example in all states you can't hunt from a road, near a home or in a city. So you couldn't have a loaned firearm in a car driving to your hunting spot, or in any city limits, etc. That meant the exemption literally only was viable if the two people walked out into the location where the hunt would happen and the gun was handed off them and was handed back in the same place.
7962
(11,841 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)And your friend?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 17, 2016, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)
I own 5 pre WWI rifles. Designed in 1898. I bought one for each of my grand children if they are interested when they reach majority. They are not so much weapons as historical artifacts.
I own one pistol. It was designed in 1893 for the Russian Army and is truly a one off design. Ammunition for it is only made in Russia and only every few years. It was designed specifically to develop enough muzzle velocity to penetrate Russian army winter coats (2 inches of felt which when wet make an effective body armor). It wasn't successful.
I own one modern shot gun that I rarely use for bird hunting.
Except for storing the weapons I borrowed I haven't opened the gun safe in two years.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)She was never stable, my husband had custody of the girls during a time when that was rare--and we never knew where she got the gun.
I sat two little girls on the couch and explained to them their mother was dead. Hands down, the worst moment of my life.
Girls are grown now, and are happy and healthy but with some anger and confusion still as too the why.
I regret her loss always, she has missed so much.
Thank goodness for you, thank goodness for your friend
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Don't get me wrong, I think both people made the right choice. But under Universal Background Check laws, that's an illegal transfer.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)ecstatic
(32,712 posts)would circumvent any potential issues? The lock box would remain at the gun owner's home.
niyad
(113,344 posts)and for caring, and knowing what to do.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)24 month divorce, bitter ex was a violent hitter. She was alway calling the sheriff with bogus charges on him. Imagine her surprise and the sheriffs when they went to open his safe and it wasn't there. Safe and content gone!
PS: I was the holder till things settled down and he was moved into his new house.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)It sure as hell beats calling the police. It seems like the police escalate a situation by their very presence. Friends can speak to a person with love and understanding -- something the police just can't do unless they're acquainted with the people involved.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)My dad was USMC, WWII, and he would not have a gun in the house for the reason that he believed he might do something stupid with it someday.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Not sure how that would be handed personally in my state.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NickB79
(19,253 posts)The only problem? As of May 11, 2015, any transfer of a firearm, even between private parties when no money changes hands, requires a full background check.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Get back to me when something worth discussing happens.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NickB79
(19,253 posts)To determine if any laws have been broken.
Which tells me it's a badly written law to start with.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)If actually reading the law isn't the way.
As long as know one finds out would work too. Unless the possessor does something illegal with the guns, no one is going to check.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)An illegal transfer in such states would be giving your typical white wing gun nut weapobs without a background check.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)innocent people, it's not a prosecutable violation of law. Now if it were a Randy Weaver type transfer -- here white supremacist Aryan Nation racist, I got a gun to transfer that you can use to shoot little Black children and we won't do a background check-- it's a violation of the intent of the law.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Because there was no intent to REALLY break the law (other then the illegal transfers).
2 buddies swapping guns is prosecutable, but giving the guns to each other because one declares he is a risk to himself/others, then feels better, is not.
Strange laws we have.
Seems better they should just be law-abiding & get the background checks done in both situations - one dealer could handle them all coming and going (as long as they both pass)...shouldn't cost too much more then $25-35 a gun.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)can't because it might be a violation of transferring guns without a background check. JeeeeeZus Christ.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 18, 2016, 03:30 PM - Edit history (2)
Taking them in is easy...he'd be committing the crime (till he wanted them back) , and likely he has enough problems. We can just go to a FFL and keep it legal.
Chances are some people won't care about breaking the law, but others don't take doing something illegal lightly.
"Your" call for sure.
IF you want to base it all on "intent" then selling your legal-to-own buddy a gun vs selling it to someone you know is likely not legal makes all the difference. If only the laws were written that way.
ETA: they used to be
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)One mans taking guns from a depressed person is another's illegal transfer made to hide the guns in case the spouse gets a restraining order.
How do you prove it the motive?
The law is still broken, and your just hoping that you get cops and prosecutors who believe toe story and think it's enough reason to not arrest or prosecute.
I find it telling that the gun folks, who keep getting portrayed as criminals, are the ones calling for following the letter of the law and the anti gun folks are saying ignore the law and hope the cops and prosecutors are ok with itz
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 18, 2016, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)
There is your headline and how it goes down when the mad spouse goes down to get a restraining order and says "ohh yeah, he has lots of guns but he and his buddy are hiding them since they know I'm doing this"
Since it's clearly a crime in those states all they have to do is present a less than noble intent to cast doubt.
And all the prosecutor will ask is "why didn't you just call the police to come take them so you wouldn't be commiting a crime transferring them if you were so worried about his behavior unless you were trying to hide the guns?"
Boom- with there being no question the law was broken the spin is there to make it prosecutable. And in those same states prosecuting "gun crime" is high profile and more political DA's want every conviction in the books they can get.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And suddenly you have doubt as the the intent and an easy open door to prosecute.
"Sir, if his safety was a concern why didn't you call the police to take the guns as soon as you had them away from him instead of illegally keeping possession of them? Why did you not follow up and do the transfer legally a few hours later when a gun store was open?"
No good answers to those plus a spouse spinning a different version of events to make thier divorce case look better and you have an easy prosecution...
The cries of "well the law says that but they would never enforce it" are stupid and a stupid way to justify laws that criminalize acts like this.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Not happy to have guns in my house, but I took them when his girlfriend asked me to after his suicide attempt (pills) while he was in a residential VA PTSD program for 6 weeks.
A while after he finished the program he aked for his guns back and I returned them. All 2 or 3 handguns and 10 or 12 long guns.
Later he used one of those guns to put a bullet in his head one Christmas.
R.I.P., Jim.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would simply note he had already attempted suicide with pills.
Guns don't cause suicide or depression.
The arguments claiming its easier to kill yourself with a gun also defy statistics. The suicide rate in the USA is comparable to other developed nations with much stricter gun laws and/or rates of firearm ownership such as Canada, Australia and most of Europe, and much, much lower than in countries like Japan and Korea where private gun ownership is near impossible.
Sadly, if someone intends to take their own life, there are ample, and quite reliable, means to accomplish the goal, and a person will not be "more dead" if the chosen instrument is a firearm.
If you want to discuss improving suicide prevention resources and mental health treatment, you'll find many gun rights supporters to be strong and vocal allies. If suicide is used cynically as a justification for ever increasing firearm regulation, often by people and politicians who've never needed a reason to advocate for such restrictions and have done so for decades, you'll not only face opposition by these gun rights supporters, you'll needlessly alienate and sow distrust among a very large segment of the population who would have otherwise supported unquestionably progressive mental health policies. The converse is also often true. Just because advocacy for better mental health treatment is advocated by groups like the dreaded NRA, it doesn't make the policies wrong or misguided.
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)Surely that trust is base on past experience with you and how your handle yourself.
Congratulations for being that kind of friend/family.
Chalco
(1,308 posts)The world needs more people like you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's entirely possible you saved two lives.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.
Citation later due to awful laptop keyboard and slow connection.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)classykaren
(769 posts)Soxfan58
(3,479 posts)Responsible gun ownership
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)ecstatic
(32,712 posts)infallible people who don't need that type of precaution...until it's too late.
In your friend's case, the self awareness / awareness of not being infallible probably means that the intervention was not needed, though it's an excellent precaution, just in case things escalate. Kudos.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)nor does the rest of my family.
I did need it in my youth, when my ex "went sideways," which is why there are no firearms in my home or my life.
And, in my 56 years, the only time I haven't been "safe" in my home, the only time I've ever needed any protection at all, was when I was married to that ex, because that's where all the threats to safety came from. For the 30+ years since, I've lived peacefully and safely without fear, and without weapons to "protect" me. The last 16 years I've lived alone, an older woman, with no fear at all.
branford
(4,462 posts)under your circumstances. I similarly own no firearms as I too feel safe and quite fortunate and don't otherwise engage in hunting or firearm sports.
However, it would be presumptuous to believe other people are as lucky.
There are probably some people out there who are at higher risk than I.
And there are many more people out there that are simply fearful, with or without cause. That kind of fearfulness, imo, is dangerous in itself.
intheozone
(1,103 posts)needs a friend like you. You obviously are very skilled at dealing with people and it sounds like your skills are put to very good use.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I'm a survivor of spousal abuse. In the end I had to run away to this country with my baby. The thing that jarred me beyond my fear of him was that I knew someday he would attack my son. Abusers don't just stop with their wives. Their children suffer too.
You did something that is probably much more powerful than someone calling the police. You were there to talk them down, and you're still there for them.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Good on you!