January 2, 201016 yr http://www.nj.com/suburbannews/index.ssf/2009/12/union_county_sheriffs_officers_3.html Union County Sheriff Ralph Froehlich (right) and Sheriff
January 2, 201016 yr No info, but it sounds like 2 typical TRO services. This happens all the time. It must've been a slow news day.
January 2, 201016 yr The photo tells so much. I identified the following: A black powder rifle, an Ithaca 37, a High Standard 22, an SKS, and the real deal breaker - the piece de resistance, an aluminum baseball bat. :roll: :roll:
January 2, 201016 yr From the comments: This is just one more reason why Corzine needs to act quickly and limit spear purchases to only 5 per month. Heh.
January 2, 201016 yr No info, but it sounds like 2 typical TRO services. This happens all the time. It must've been a slow news day. +1
January 2, 201016 yr I love how they have the bayo on the SKS extended... nice over-under shotgun too...
January 2, 201016 yr WOW! I better put the baseball bats in the tool box on the back of my truck and lock it too!! :doh:
January 2, 201016 yr This reminds me of my neighbor about 10 years ago. They had a bbq and one of the couples they had over got into an argument and fight, his wife calls the police they arrest the couple for domestic violence one of the cops asked bob if he had any guns and he said yes, they confiscated his guns . The people arrested did not live their and they were fighting outside. bob had. rem 870 rem1100 rem youth 1100 for his son ruger over under red label that was his late fathers. The ruger was the reason bob highered a lawyer to get them back or he would not have bothered because it was cost prohibited.. he was very upset they took his dads red label..
January 2, 201016 yr Congrats to the police on finding someones' personal gun collection. If you knew the law, you would know that it is mandatory under Federal laws and the NJ DV laws.
January 2, 201016 yr They failed to mention that many of not all could have been legally owned but when there is a domestic issue they seize them 99% of the time. I guess they just want to show everyone that they did their job so we can all sleep safer at night.
January 2, 201016 yr Congrats to the police on finding someones' personal gun collection. If you knew the law, you would know that it is mandatory under Federal laws and the NJ DV laws. Just another law to take legaly owned firarms away from the homeowner. Their should be a clause that if the argument is by visitors they should not be able to take the home owners guns..
January 2, 201016 yr Congrats to the police on finding someones' personal gun collection. If you knew the law, you would know that it is mandatory under Federal laws and the NJ DV laws. And it is mandatory to take a photo op like they succeeded at fighting crime or made a big bust of some guy's gun collection? They are an embarrassment for posing like they did something meaningful.
January 2, 201016 yr Their should be a clause that if the argument is by visitors they should not be able to take the home owners guns.. Read the law. Look at a DV complaint. There is. Sleep at night? How about getting sued when the firearms aren't secured. Think it doesn't happen? Guess again. I've been through one in past years. They are an embarrassment for posing like they did something meaningful. Have you ever handled a DV with a homicide? Judging by your comments you haven't had that experience. I've had five.
January 2, 201016 yr Well I'm pretty sure the officers themselves didn't request the photo-op/press release. It's a political game from higher up. I think that's the part that Mike was really talking about.
January 2, 201016 yr Their should be a clause that if the argument is by visitors they should not be able to take the home owners guns.. Read the law. Look at a DV complaint. There is. Sleep at night? How about getting sued when the firearms aren't secured. Think it doesn't happen? Guess again. I've been through one in past years. They are an embarrassment for posing like they did something meaningful. Have you ever handled a DV with a homicide? Judging by your comments you haven't had that experience. I've had five. Congratulations. Oh, and this had nothing to do with a homicide.
January 2, 201016 yr Oh, and this had nothing to do with a homicide. They usually don't Until you have one party kill the other. Then they do. Only one didn't involve a firearm. That one he just poured gas on her and set her on fire. All except him reasonable people and no prior hint of a violent reaction. They usually don't tell you about it until they actually commit one. Few are thought about until the event happens. So erring on the side of caution is the best way to prevent a few.
January 3, 201016 yr Oh, and this had nothing to do with a homicide. They usually don't Until you have one party kill the other. Then they do. Only one didn't involve a firearm. That one he just poured gas on her and set her on fire. All except him reasonable people and no prior hint of a violent reaction. They usually don't tell you about it until they actually commit one. Few are thought about until the event happens. So erring on the side of caution is the best way to prevent a few. I know you didn't make the law.. but that kinda goes along the lines of we should just take away every conceivable form of weapon from the person who is "charged".. hell.. even his fists could be weapons.. so we should just lock someone up for a few months or years till the divorce is settled. But I guess I might be getting off topic :?
January 3, 201016 yr You want a one hundred percent guarantee. There is no such thing. Are you willing to accept the over fifty percent rate of homicides committed with firearms in DV cases? I'm not walking out only to find the next day one party died because something was left behind. While many are concerned about walking around without a means of protection, odds are they will be injured or killed by someone known to them. In my experience it was closer to ninety percent, all but one using a firearm. So yes, there will still be deaths in the emotionally charged instances. Saving a few puts you ahead of the game.
January 3, 201016 yr Have you ever handled a DV with a homicide? Judging by your comments you haven't had that experience. I've had five. Only one didn't involve a firearm. That one he just poured gas on her and set her on fire. In my experience it was closer to ninety percent, all but one using a firearm. 4 out of 5 is 80%, not 90% 4/5=8/10=0.8=80%
January 3, 201016 yr You want a one hundred percent guarantee. There is no such thing. Are you willing to accept the over fifty percent rate of homicides committed with firearms in DV cases? I'm not walking out only to find the next day one party died because something was left behind. While many are concerned about walking around without a means of protection, odds are they will be injured or killed by someone known to them. In my experience it was closer to ninety percent, all but one using a firearm. So yes, there will still be deaths in the emotionally charged instances. Saving a few puts you ahead of the game. Rich.. I never accused you of not doing your job. And I know you didn't make the law... and you do have more experience in this subject than probably just about everyone on this board. The law is the law.. and I'm not debating that fact. All I'm saying is that say my hypothetical marriage is on the rocks. My wife files for divorce, then of course her attorney will have her file a BS restraining order for leverage purposes. My firearms are seized until the conclusion. And I didn't do anything wrong... There's been at least a handful of threads on this very little board on this subject.. I better hope all of my really good friend's have pistol permits ready that they are willing to burn on buying my guns from me. What is the rate of homicide or repeated attack vs the total number of DV restraining orders issued?
January 3, 201016 yr What is the rate of homicide or repeated attack vs the total number of DAV restraining orders issued? Maybe a better question would be "what is the acceptable rate of..." How many homicides are you willing to accept. Firearms are used in the majority of DAV homicides, handguns overwhelmingly. Every one I was involved with except one involved normal everyday people. The one exception was the one who used gas. One perfectly normal guy with two kids was invited over to talk about the situation. He calmly killed his wife with a shotgun, then himself in front of his two kids. One later came to work for me. Can you say that one is an acceptable one? Now we both know you don't think so. We both know that nothing on this earth will stop all homicides. Maybe keeping a few from happening is the best anyone can do.
January 3, 201016 yr What is the rate of homicide or repeated attack vs the total number of DAV restraining orders issued? Maybe a better question would be "what is the acceptable rate of..." How many homicides are you willing to accept. Firearms are used in the majority of DAV homicides, handguns overwhelmingly. Every one I was involved with except one involved normal everyday people. The one exception was the one who used gas. One perfectly normal guy with two kids was invited over to talk about the situation. He calmly killed his wife with a shotgun, then himself in front of his two kids. One later came to work for me. Can you say that one is an acceptable one? Now we both know you don't think so. We both know that nothing on this earth will stop all homicides. Maybe keeping a few from happening is the best anyone can do. Rich.. I'm sorry if I touched a nerve.. and I'll stop responding in this thread if you want. Let me rephrase what I was asking: There must be thousands of Restraining orders issued at any one time. Do the aggressors return to harm again in a majority of these cases? Does seizing the firearms actually reduce the amount of homicide or violence? I'm just asking about the statistics. Does the benefit outweigh the costs?
January 3, 201016 yr Not in the least. This place is for discussion. Getting all sides of any idea is a positive thing. While my first experiences with firearms was a positive one due to many people who gave a lot of their time, I've also seen the negitive side which depending on who is telling the story is pun many different ways. I don't adopt the party line for either side. Unfortunatly domestic violence incidents were truly a no win situation for anyone.
January 3, 201016 yr Unfortunatly domestic violence incidents were truly a no win situation for anyone. Isn't that the truth.
January 3, 201016 yr my buddy when he was a patrolmen said 50 % of his calls were domestic violence. hence our dept has a dv line. their have been no gun related offenses that i know of in our twp and the dv rate is high for calls. we are confiscating these for safety. how many are returned? how many that were returned did the people involved recieved counseling? seems to me their should be a protocul for returning siezed weapons if they were legaly owned.
January 3, 201016 yr This thread really did evolve into a good discussion. My only beef with confiscating weapons, is after the guns are taken, there are so many weapons left in the house, it does not make sense to me other than a political statement. They need to go into the kitchen and take the steak knives, butter knives, forks, carving knives, take the hammers and screw drivers out of the house, saws, plumbers wrenches, etc... It is all about a photo op The police are not removing all of the dangers from the house, by just collecting guns. Just ask Reginald Denny what a brick can do.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.