Domestic Violence + Guns

[Militarypol21]

Did an INGO search and couldn't find any related posts...

So to make a long story short... The girl I'm dating has a domestic violence charge on her record due to a low-life POS ex-fiance that had her cornered in the kitchen. The only way she could get out of the house was to hit him, which in turn knocked him out of the way and then she ran out of the house. He called the police, she was arrested and charged with Domestic Violence and decided not to fight it in court (unknown reasons why).

So my question(s) I know the laws regarding Domestic Violence when it comes to the Department of Defense, but am unsure about the civilian side... She was told she can't own a gun nor be around any guns. I don't see how it's logical for her to not be around guns because in reality, guns are everywhere. If things someday get serious and we end up living together somewhere down the line, is it legal for me to have my guns in the house? Does anyone have the IC's for Domestic Violence?

Thanks

 

[christman]

IC 35-47-4-6
Unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer
Sec. 6. (a) A person who has been convicted of domestic battery under IC 35-42-2-1.3 and who knowingly or intentionally possesses a firearm commits unlawful possession of a firearm by a domestic batterer, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person's right to possess a firearm has been restored under IC 35-47-4-7.
As added by P.L.195-2003, SEC.7. Amended by P.L.98-2004, SEC.156; P.L.118-2007, SEC.36.
IC 35-47-4-7
Persons prohibited from possessing a firearm; restoration of right to possess a firearm
Sec. 7. (a) Notwithstanding IC 35-47-2, IC 35-47-2.5, the restoration of the right to serve on a jury under IC 33-28-5-18, or the restoration of the right to vote under IC 3-7-13-5, and except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (f), a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may not possess a firearm after the person's release from imprisonment or lawful detention.
(b) Not earlier than five (5) years after the date of conviction, a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may petition the court for restoration of the person's right to possess a firearm. In determining whether to restore the person's right to possess a firearm, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether the person has been subject to:
(A) a protective order;
(B) a no contact order;
(C) a workplace violence restraining order; or
(D) any other court order that prohibits the person from possessing a firearm.
(2) Whether the person has successfully completed a substance abuse program, if applicable.
(3) Whether the person has successfully completed a parenting class, if applicable.
(4) Whether the person still presents a threat to the victim of the crime.
(5) Whether there is any other reason why the person should not possess a firearm, including whether the person failed to satisfy a specified condition under subsection (c) or whether the person has committed a subsequent offense.
(c) The court may condition the restoration of a person's right to possess a firearm upon the person's satisfaction of specified conditions.
(d) If the court denies a petition for restoration of the right to possess a firearm, the person may not file a second or subsequent petition until one (1) year has elapsed after the filing of the most recent petition.
(e) A person has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence for purposes of subsection (a) if the conviction has been expunged or if the person has been pardoned.
(f) The right to possess a firearm shall be restored to a person whose conviction is reversed on appeal or on postconviction review at the earlier of the following:
(1) At the time the prosecuting attorney states on the record that the charges that gave rise to the conviction will not be refiled.
(2) Ninety (90) days after the final disposition of the appeal or the postconviction proceeding.
As added by P.L.118-2007, SEC.I

If it is your house than it is perfectly legal to have firearms there. I'm not sure if it is her house though. Unless the firearm is on your person all the time.

 

[JBusch8899]

While Indiana may have a mechanism for restoring such, the Lautenberg Amendment, an amendment to the 1968 Federal GCA, prohibits such possession as well.

The 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act amended the criminal provisions of the GCA, adding this as a disqualification category.

 

[451_Detonics]

Talk to a good lawyer about having it expunged from her record. If the facts as stated by the OP it shouldn't be a tough one to get done.

 

[JBusch8899]

Talk to a good lawyer about having it expunged from her record. If the facts as stated by the OP it shouldn't be a tough one to get done.

Her acceptance to enter a plea of guilty, is equivalent to a guilty verdict after trial. As such, it is unlikely that there are any legal issues to file an appeal, much less a expungement; the only realistic recourse is a restoration of the disability she has occurred. Of course, IANAL.

 

[Newbomb92]

What about a nolo contendre plea? Would that be expunged?

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I understand it, after some period of time following a verdict/conviction, they can be reduced from felony to misdemeanor, however, that would be no help in a DV case in and of itself. I think her only real option would be a full pardon from the governor.

IANAL either.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Militarypol21]

As I understand it, after some period of time following a verdict/conviction, they can be reduced from felony to misdemeanor, however, that would be no help in a DV case in and of itself. I think her only real option would be a full pardon from the governor.

IANAL either.

Blessings,
Bill

From what I understand by her taking a plea it was reduced from a Felony to a Misdemeanor. I think the only reason she didn't wish to fight it in court was because she didn't feal she would win her case due to the judge she had and would have a felony conviction.

 

[VERT]

That is the problem that I have with the domestic battery charge. It is the only misdemener conviction that I know of that can strip you of one of your rights. In this case the ability to own firearms. So they singled out one offense and targeted one action (In this case gun ownership). Oh I understand that "wife beaters" are dangerous and should not own an "evil gun", but if a person is so dangerous, why not just charge and convict them with a felony?

 

[Militarypol21]

That is the problem that I have with the domestic battery charge. It is the only misdemener conviction that I know of that can strip you of one of your rights. In this case the ability to own firearms. So they singled out one offense and targeted one action (In this case gun ownership). Oh I understand that "wife beaters" are dangerous and should not own an "evil gun", but if a person is so dangerous, why not just charge and convict them with a felony?

Agreed 100%. The low life (mentioned above) thinks she is going to kill him and told the officer that during the initial report. He failed to mention he had her trapped in the room with no way of escaping. It's all about who calls the police first.

 

[JBusch8899]

What about a nolo contendre plea? Would that be expunged?

A Nolo Contendre plea has the effect of a plea of guilty in a criminal action, but the plea cannot be used against the defendant as such in a civil proceeding.

 

[kludge]

Domestic violence is one of those touchy areas for me... allow me to explain...

There is an actual strong correlation of statistical data that people who die as a result of gunshot wounds have a partner who has a history of substance abuse and domestic violence. Of course the reverse may be true, as is allegedly the case in the OP.

It's actually one of the very few types of infringement to the whole RKBA that I can tolerate, up to private ownership of nuclear/biological weapons.

I also think that people with such convictions should have a right to a process available other than an executive pardon - which has the tendency to involve curry favor - so that they can sue for their rights to be restored.

 

[JBusch8899]

Domestic violence is one of those touchy areas for me... allow me to explain...

There is an actual strong correlation of statistical data that people who die as a result of gunshot wounds have a partner who has a history of substance abuse and domestic violence. Of course the reverse may be true, as is allegedly the case in the OP.

It's actually one of the very few types of infringement to the whole RKBA that I can tolerate, up to private ownership of nuclear/biological weapons.

I also think that people with such convictions should have a right to a process available other than an executive pardon - which has the tendency to involve curry favor - so that they can sue for their rights to be restored.

+1 to Kludge.

Its one thing to remove one's right for cause. Its quite another to not provide a method of due process to restore the same right.

However I would add, that the ex post facto effect of the Lautenberg Amendment, was and is contrary to constitutional protections, and should have never materialized.

 

[Newbomb92]

A Nolo Contendre plea has the effect of a plea of guilty in a criminal action, but the plea cannot be used against the defendant as such in a civil proceeding.

It was either nolo contendre or they didn't put in a plea and gave someone a year of no arrests and it would be expunged. Not sure if that would prevent gun ownership.