In Maine

by M.D. Creekmore on March 10, 2010

A bill to allow police to seize guns if someone is charged with domestic violence.

Print Friendly
Join thousands of preppers and get all my survival tips for FREE! Subscribe to The Survivalist Blog dot Net via RSS or via e-mail.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also like...

  1. Northern Maine as a Survival Retreat Location
  2. A “Thank You” to all Survivalist Blog Readers
  3. Quick Survival tip
  4. How Can I Make The Survivalist Blog More Useful for You?
  5. Free Front Sight DVD

{ 16 comments }

Anonymous March 10, 2010 at 7:39 PM

That is already the case in North Carolina. Just the accusation of domestic voilence will result in the confiscation of all the weapons they can find in your house. It's up to the judge to decide when, if or how you get them back.

Mechanic in Illinois March 10, 2010 at 8:12 PM

As I said before it's coming from the top (Uncle Sugar,Nanny Govt) and they are doing anything they can to control us. The more guns they remove from the sheople,the easier it is to turn us into a third world nation. It's here,we better be ready to stand and fight.

diykozmonot March 10, 2010 at 9:12 PM

I say good, because the kind of people involved in 'domestic disputes' don't deserve to possess any sort of firearm in the first place. In fact, if you do beat your wife and kids you should not be allowed to breathe.

diykozmonot March 10, 2010 at 9:14 PM

and what does this have to do with on-the-cheap survival in the first place?? OH yeah, i forgot, you listen to that drug-addled bigot on the AM radio everyday. IT WILL FRY YOUR BRAIN, just tune out.

James frojm Iowa March 10, 2010 at 9:23 PM

The same sort of bill is working its way in the Iowa legislature – mere accusation of domestic violence would suffice to have firearms & ammo confiscated.

Anonymous March 10, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Follow up on my first comment. It has been the law in NC for some time. IDK, my guess is 10 years or more. I can see the reasoning behind it and in the case of real domestic violence it's probably a good thing. A man that would strike his wife probably doesn't need to be carrying a gun. The problem is this, and it recently happened to a guy I know. A couple will get into a little spat that doesn't amount to much but the woman (usually a sorry woman) knows the law and to get even for not getting her way she'll call the law and claim he slapped her or whatever. The law will come and the first thing they do is take the guns. In my friends case he was able to convience the court that he was not guilty, that his wife (they are now seperated) had accused him out of spite. Still he had to hire an attorney and spend a lot of time and money that he didn't have to get his guns back. When they did finally give them back they were placed in the custody of his older brother in law who agreed to keep them and only allow him to have them to hunt.

Anonymous March 10, 2010 at 11:41 PM

How do any of these laws get around the 14th Amendment, which says in part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"? If they are convicted, that is a different story. But how can the mere accusation of a crime be considered "due process of law" before the trial occurs?

Spudfarmer March 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM

You people who think this is ok have got to stop! YOU CANT CONTROL EVERYTHING! I am so sick of people thinking they know better and making decisions for everyone else. This isn't about guns, its about rights. You can't take somebodys rights away because it makes you feel better or safer. If some guy is willing to beat his wife, then he is probably willing to grab a 2 by 4 and beat her with that. If the guy is going to do it, he is going to do it with a knife, fists, or buy another gun out of the newspaper. It's the same thing with this freaking bill in New York that will ban salt in restaurants. Are you FU&*%NG kidding me? You have to have salt to live and they are going to ban it? What is going on in this country? You have to stop giving up other peoples rights just because it doesn't effect you.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Ben Franklin

Anonymous March 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Spudfarmer,
looks like we'll be bunkmates in the FEMA "reeducation" camp.

Anonymous March 11, 2010 at 7:15 PM

There is a bill here in Iowa that would bar people convicted of domestic abuse, or subject to a permanent restraining order (which requires a court hearing where a defendant can address allegations), but not the mere accusation.

ranting sheep March 13, 2010 at 2:16 AM

This is already the case in NJ as well. Matter of fact, a good friend, going thru a nasty divorce had the X tell a cop that she felt "threatened" ….. and next thing you know, the cops where there, requested and took to his Gun. No explanation. No return. Done deal.

You give "them" the stick, and they will Beat you with it.

Some of us (especially those that would support such a thing) don't deserve to live in a free country.

carmine July 30, 2010 at 6:27 PM

felt threatened? why dont you just chop off the guys hands so he cant strangle that idiot ?? same thing applies to the piece i wrote before like i said before im against domestic abuse in any form but come on

llew March 15, 2010 at 4:08 AM

"those types don't deserve" almost a direct translation of the german circa 1939 course they were talking about a different 'them'

richard muszynski March 16, 2010 at 9:33 AM

Greetings. it sounds to me as a direct clone of the federal confistication laws used to take property from anyone accused of or thought to be involved in drugs or unpatriotic or ungovernment thoughts. hello 1984. is no longer necessary to do anything to be guilty of a crime. i recall when i was young that you could think anything you want, but you would be punished for what you did that was illegal. now that is no longer necessary to actually do anything. but if you are rich enough the law does not apply to you even if you do instead of simply think.

richard muszynski March 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM

as far as the accused automatically being guilty because they are accused. is there not a section in the Constitution that says you are innocent until proven guilty? what happened to it? same as happened to our right to peaceful assembly? but then one should not be surprised at draconian laws when a nation is dying. it is the norm is it not?

carmine July 30, 2010 at 6:22 PM

yeah in ny its the same baloney if your going through a divorce the judge will order you to remove all firearms from the house thats great but what about screwdrivers, kitchen knives, hammers, nail guns, awls,ax,shanks,broken glass ,forks ,pens,heavey objects ,motor vehicles, carbon monoxide ,poison,the list goes on and on i can understand women getting beaten up and im against that but really if you are motivated male or female you will kill with whatever object comes into contact with your hands including your hands its just another stupid attempt by big government to deny rights to citezens it has nothing to do with domestic violence

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: