" Aggravated assault is a felony and as such, this man would lose his right to own guns. Domestic violence should BE a felony. "

" I'll be glad to tell you the "logic behind this law." A person doesn't lose their gun rights because a protection order is placed against them. They lose them ONLY when they don't have the self control to obey that order and therefore violate it. That's the kind of person who SHOULDN'T have guns! But you're right, it won't really stop a criminal from using a gun against someone anymore than the piece of paper that's called "Protection Order" doesn't stop an abuser from coming back to abuse his victim. "

" Ok, so "Bob" can go beat up "Jim" and get an ASSULT charge and keep his Gun. Is That better? My points still stands. Not to mention the fact that more often then not, how many people claim they have been hit by their partner but in fact were never touched? Or are we as a society so ignorant that we believe that every spouse who claims violence, is never lying? Give me a break. Granted it does happen more then we even know, but how can we as a people be so vague in our law making that we leave the opportunity for an innocent person to suffer for life on a crime that had he or she been accused of with anyone other than a spouse or family member, they would never lose their right to bear arms? I think that society is more than willing to hang an innocent person on the side of safety rather than put forth an effort to analyze our judgement. In this country, you are either Innocent or Guilty and there is never an in-between nor is there any explanation for why on either verdict. No one cares that our society is crashing faster and faster into a world of dictation and away from freedom. Its just another reason for the growing government to justify the eventuall and innevitable removal of our guns. So go ahead and view the subject from what ever side they present it to you, but the fact remains, in my oppinion, you are vague in your judgement and lacking in the one trait that makes us free, "The ability to be independent thinkers, without predjudace and lazyness". "

" Anyone convicted of any type of violent crime should in no sense be allowed to own a gun the seconded to commit a violent crime any right you have to bear arms should immediately be revoked and well if you want to beat people and get away with it and carry a gun move to Iraq and let the U.S Military have a crack at you "

" WOW! Paul read a law book. "

" So Rage, i assume you claim to never have lost your temper and made a mistake? I Guess if your girlfriend or wife got mad at you and called the cops saying, you hit her and you know you didnt, but you were cuffed, charged and thrown in jail untill you could prove your innocents and on top of that, you cant prove your word against hers and there for lose your right to bare arms. You are saying that that could never happen and the courts never convict an innocent man? If that is what you are implying then Sir or Ma'm, you are by far the most ignorant person ive ever heard of. And as usual every one of you has totally missed the point. Im not justifying Domestic Violence, i am speaking about how the law is vague and unjust. But just like every one who has an opinion, you refuse to look outside the box and have an open mind so that instead of only seeing your own view, maybe you might see another. Oh by the way, at what point did i mention anything about anyone trying to "beat people up and get away with it"? I dare say you should go back and read the letter a couple more times with a little less hostility and stupidity, and maybe it might register to you that the title reads " Inconsistency Hits CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT", Not,,, "Violent Offenders should have Guns". "

" did Bob go over to Jims house to beat him up because Bob knows Jims been beating on his wife? What goes around comes around. Bob wont lose his gun rights from being charged with assault, only if he's convicted. I personally don't believe there's a single conviction where the victim is lying. the burden of proof is on the victim and that victim had better have some pretty good proof before any judge in this town will convict. the law is always on the abusers side. Jim better have some good proof that Bob beat the snot out of him. and if you think so many innocent people are convicted of absue in this country - get out! like Rage said, go to Iraq. there you can beat your women unencumbered. "

" Paul - you don't seen to be making any kind of impression here. i mean every single comment posted just points out YOUR consistencies, not the constitutions. it seems you're a bit bitter over some recent loss of rights?? well, calling people stupid and ignorant does nothing but make you look stupid and ignorant. and by the way, why would somone that "doesn't advocate domestic violence" write and article like this, unless it hits home?? it seems to me that you, mr. wood, obviously know what it's like to be convicted of a domestic crime. hmmmm. . . . .interesting. "

" I have lost my temper more than once but have never sunk so low as to "threaten, shove or even slap" much less punch, throw, stab, shoot, etc. a female or anyone else for that matter. It's called self control. It's pretty obvious from your replies that you lack that virtue, considering that your calling everyone who replied to you ignorant or stupid. Shame on you - can't even stay civil in a newspaper forum. I don't agree that white-collar felons should lose their constitutation right to bear arms. But violent criminals, whether felon or misdemeanor should.

The reason the supreme court ruled the way they did was because Wyoming will not expunge a past domestic violation conviction from one's criminal record. Without the crime being expunged, the right to bear arms can not be reinstated. THANK YOU, government of Wyoming for this wise decision. "

" Guess I don't see where the law is vague or unjust. Beat your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend: lose your Second Amendment rights. Seems pretty straight forward to me. "

" is this the same paul wood that i see in the casper section of the star tribune under arrests and/or district court doings so often? paul j. wood? well if so, i find it funny that you would rant and rave about not getting to own a gun, and not being an advocate of domestic violence, when your criminal history speaks such loud words, and this is just public record. i mean, i personally wouldn't want to give someone who has 5 FVPA protection order convictions, violation of probation, destruction of property, convicted stalking, and a 3rd degree sexual assualt charge a gun. seems like quite the violent past, prolly not a good idea to reward that with gun rights. but that's just MY opinion. i'm studying journalism right now and one thing i've learned is that history usually repeats itself. "

" I just thought i would copy and past laws and facts from a non bias point of view and well its very simple to understand.. these"Rights" are privlages and can be revoked at any time its your responsabilty to attepmt to earn the right back.. so that is why you sould vote and do your best to maintain your rights so in so many ways instead of writing to the editor right your congressman and well maybe he will see things your way ... but the facts and the laws are there for a reason


Convicted felons traditionally have been banned from owning guns, for obvious reasons. But in 1996, Congress expanded that ban to include misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Wyoming responded by creating a process to help some of those people regain their gun rights, if they can show they've reformed themselves

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence," Pub.L. 104-208[1], 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[2]) was an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996. The Act is often referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg The Act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence, or who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. The Act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such person

John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens

THE BRADY LAW: PREVENTING CRIME AND SAVING LIVES

Introduction

Prior to the enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) in 1993, most states did not require background checks of gun purchasers so there was no way for gun sellers to know whether customers were lying about their backgrounds. The Brady Law, which went into effect on February 28, 1994, changed this by requiring federally-licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) to check with law enforcement before selling a firearm. Since 1994, the Brady Law has stopped more than 600,000 criminals and other prohibited people from purchasing firearms from FFLs. Because the law only applies to FFLs, there are still many gun sales by unlicensed, so-called "private sellers," that are not subject to a background check.

When conducting the Brady background checks, law enforcement officials determine whether the buyer is prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm under the federal Gun Control Act or state law. Federal law prohibits the following categories of persons from buying or possessing firearms:

Those under indictment for, or convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Fugitives from justice;
Users of controlled substances;
Persons adjudicated as "mental defective" or committed to mental institutions;
Illegal aliens;
Individuals dishonorably discharged from the military;
Those who have renounced their United States citizenship;
Persons subject to a court order restraining a person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of the intimate partner; or,
Those convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.
Additionally, it is unlawful for an FFL to sell a handgun to anyone under the age of 21, or a long gun to anyone under 18. While it is against the law for an FFL to sell a handgun to anyone under 21 years of age, the law allows individuals over the age of 18, but not yet 21, to possess handguns "

" Yeah usualy we don't want the wife beaters carrying around guns because hmmm....maybe they have anger problems OORR psychological problems? Actually i wish Domestic Abuse was a felony, maybe it would teach people to stop beating on their "loved ones". Also, I think people who have commited aggravated assault should have their right to bare arms taken away also? Why is this an issue for you Paul? Wouldnt you feel safer? "

" After reading this article in the Casper Star Tribune a few days ago, all I could to is laugh to myself. The frist thought that came to my head was how much regret Mr. Wood must be feeling over the loss of his own rights. My second thought was how perfectly inconsistant his article was on the inconsistancy of the Constitution. First of all, I have to point out that the Constitution is far from "vague". After studying business law, our Constitution is actually quite specific and itemized. It has an in-depth description of any and every law imaginable with a very clear punishment to follow each and every one. So, I don't think that "vague" is the correct word he should have used. (Maybe is just sounded cool and grown up to him, I don't know).

I'm going to try and be as bias as I can about this, although we all know that would be a HUGE step for me considering the author of this "ignorant" this article, but nonetheless, let's just for a minute try and understand Mr. Wood's point. I suppose I can understand how one may be upset if he lost his/her gun rights for life because he/she "threatened, shoved, or slapped" his/her wife/husband. I mean, yes people do lose their tempers, making it very hard not to act on impulse. However, when this happes on a regular basis, and you don't just slap or shove but rather beat and destroy, then it becomes another story.

When a man is not only charged of FVPA Protection Order Violations, Stalking, Destruction of Property, but then convicted of all, I would find it almost impossible (as a Congress person) to trust such person with a deadly weapon.

Mr. Wood, do you honestly believe that when a person is arrested for assault or a domestic disturbance, that he/she needs to prove his/her innocence? I could have sworn that American citizens are "innocent until proven guilty".

From my extensive experience with the court system, as well as my education at Casper College regarding Wyoming Constitution, I've learned that the burdon of proof lies 100% on the victim, not the accused. If the victim does not come up with sufficient and ample amounts of evidence proving the accused of his/her guilt, than the accused gets to walk free. Therefore, the odds of an innocent man or woman (especially in a domestic offense such as battery, harrassment, and stalking) being convicted of such crimes becomes slim to none.

After speaking with the Executive Director and head of Wyoming State Victim Compensation, I've learned that there have been close to only 10 Stalking Convictions in the history of Wyoming over the last 27 years. I believe Mr. Wood knows about atleast one of those convictions.

My whole point is that if you don't want to lose your rights, behave yourself. If you can't behave yourself, don't expect to get privlidges. Being free in the US doesn't come for free. Criminals do not automatically receive rights just because they are American. That's why our country is so great! American citizens have the right to feel safe from foreign as well as DOMESTIC (that means other Americans) offenders.

Perhaps criminals of domestic violence should have thought about their rights to own firearms before they made the decision to hurt and abuse the one(s) they claim(ed) to "love." "

" Paul Wood..................I understand what you are trying to get across and I agree with you...........It seems society today wants more than fair punishment.....................The one offense does not call for a lifetime of punishment.............And yes some women do falsely accuse and seem to enjoy the power it gives them...............The law itself does not equate to compliance but it does equate to a lifetime of punishment................The punishment should equal the crime and in this case, for a single offense it does not.....................Where have we gone to??..............Is there no compassion left?..............Think about it the ones that are being punished are the ones that willingly abide by the courts ruling.....................In other words the law abiders..................The real offenders don't care what the court says.......................Is this really what we want?............................ "

" It is not all that hard to determine whether a report of violence is authentic or not. Usually there is some kind of mark - a scratch, a bruise, blood, a red mark. Cops are not the idiots some here seem to think they are. A person who makes a false charge can also face a legal consequence. Often, abusers who have faced legal penalties vow to make sure the next time is the last time, so they resort to murder.

This said, this has to be one of the stupidest letters I have read in any publication. Good Job, Mr. Wood - everyone should excell at something. "

" If you don't want your guns taken away, don't beat your girlfriend up. Not that complicated. "

" Paul, nobody wants you carrying a gun after beating on 3 of your ex wife/girlfriends a few times. When we all thought you couldnt sink any lower...u showed us once again how wrong we were... "

" Lamp Lighter, do you not understand that first offense conviction is not just "one offense?" the first offense is when someone is violent against another. It's not until a judge grants protection and that FVPA order is VIOLATED that the offender is arrested and charged. that makes it already at least a second offense. Truth is its usually several times before a violator is arrested. The above commentor Rachel Kruger is 100% right. As a victim, I know what kind of proof a victim has to have in order to prove violation, and it wasn't just my "word." accusations do NOT make a case not by a long shot.

If a person "makes a mistake" and gets an FVPA order against them, all they have to do is not violate again.... abide by the court's ruling. Then there are no losses of Second Amendment rights. Those willing to abide by the courts ruling don't even have to give this issue a thought.

Paul Wood.... with your violent past, how do you even have the nerve to write this letter in the first place. "

" The first question you ask a domestic abuser is?...... What did she do to deserve it this time! If you thought that was funny your wrong because the mentality of the morons who hit their spouse and or girlfrineds thinks that they are completely justified to hit woman and treat them like property. Violence in these situations is not random like an assault between two strangers. Assults in the family setting will progressivly get worse and worse until the victim (usually the woman) gets killed. REMEMBER THE ROLLE CASE! What is the first thing a woman does after checking out of the battered woman shelter - the dishes if she knows what's good for her! I didn't make these sick jokes up they evolved from the twisted thinking, that possessive men who don't deserve their gun rights, into articulable ironic statements. The first place I heard these jokes was in jail not at church that should tell you something also. What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?.... Nothing she's already been told twice! The list goes on of the sick twisted thinking that has been manifested into words. Nobody deserves to live in an abusive relationship, everyone in that setting loses to include children. Not only do the children lose but the abusers teach their children 1 of 2 things either this is how you treat a member of the opposite sex (or partner if you're gay) or this behavior is acceptable and you are worthless and deserve to be teated like property to be beat and disregaerded like trash. I've studied a bit about these relationship problems and know that it's not the victims fault in fact no matter what the victim does the abuser will find somrthing to fight about. For example one day you couldget beat because the house was dirty. the next day you get beat because you cleaned the house so your boyfriend could come over. It's a no win situation. And to top it off you try to leave me I'll kill you. If I can't have you nobody can. Remember the sniper in Cheyenne? Anyway have fun, keep the house clean and duck faster. "

" I'm glad that wife beaters get their guns taken away. I'm also glad that dope dealers and poachers get their guns taken away. Criminals are criminals. Not really my problem. "

" When did the NRA turn into a wife-beaters club? Have fun with Paul Wood from Casper at your next meeting. Next on the agenda: 'Whose old lady burned the toast the worst this month.?' We've got some pictures of good abdominal bruises here, and the toast that prompted them. I'll pass these around. "

" I hope Paul comes back on here to read all the great comments everyone has left. "

" So why is it that liars, like Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawly case), don't loose their 1st amendment rights?

Seriously, if we are going to revoke personal rights granted by the constitution, that should be done uniformly shouldn't it?

In the case of Sharpton he used his public persona to create and continue a lie for personal gain and to damage the credibility of an entire social group (Caucasians). "

" Embarrassment, My husband and I are both 30 year life members of the NRA. Many of the finest human beings we've ever met are members of this outstanding organization. As a member of the clergy I find your remarks careless and poorly chosen to suite your own personal agenda. I also believe that you owe several million American citizens an apology. We will pray for your redemption. "

" Lilly, your argument doesn't wash. Some rights are inalienable: speech, religion. Some are not: bearing arms, voting. "

" Arlene, a member of the 'clergy?' Aren't we all. We're very impressed with your credentials. I'm on the lawn-mowing committee at my church. Does that make me a member of the clergy? Ort do I have to go to online seminary school? Bottom line, you sound self-righteous and vain when you single yourself out as clergy. Be humble. I am praying for your redemption. "

" I think we've gone off on some kida tangent here. When did this become an article about NRA? Arlene, I don't believe Embarrassment was taking a stab at the NRA. It just seemed like cynical humor to me.

I think the focus here should be on how simple stupid this whole article is. I mean, gimme a break! Paul wants a gun after being convicted of being his wife, or girlfriend, or boyfriend, or whatever. My good friend is dead because her low life scum husband killed her with a gun after being charged with FVPA (and no, it wasn't his gun). These wife-beaters are already getting their hands on stolen guns, imagine how many dead women there would be if they could legally buy them!

I'm going to go home and sit on my ass and watch a movie with my kids . . . while my husband does the dishes and takes out the trash. See, a real man takes care of his home. It's all about compromise. I can't imagine what a black eye would like like on me. Of course, if I had one, my husband would probably have missing genitalia. "

" Mel, you don't pray for my redemption. I pray for yours. As a member of the Clergy, I think I know a few things about redemption and salvation. Something you ignorant lay people will never know. God selects those for the Clergy who are worthy. Sorry you didn't make the cut, loser. "

" To point out a factual error is Mr. Wood's letter. The "Colorado Supreme Court" did not issue any opinion regarding firearms and domestic violence on Tuesday, August 26th. It has been in recess and has not issued any opinions during the month of August. I THINK he may be referring to an opinion of the United States 10th Circut Court of Appeals which was ruling on a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming.

Also, and this is for Mr. W., society considers crimes against certain classes of victims to especially heinous. These include children, the elderly, the disabled, and domestic partners. People with whom a person has a domestic relationship are supposed to be loved and nurtured, not harmed or assaulted. This is such a threat to society and families that there are enhanced penalties and consequences for these violations. A somewhat similar analogy applies to sexual assault. That is why rape is considered a much more serious offense than a punch in the nose even though the physical harm may be less.

As has been pointed out above, a person accused of domestic violence is presumed innnocent until their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, often with the right to a jury of peers, before the right to possess a firearm is impaired.

As they say in Rawlins, "If you can't do the time (or other punishment) don't do the crime."

I will admit to some heartburn with the Lautenburg Amendment but that concerns its ex post facto nature. That is, someone was convicted or plead guilty too a domestic violence crime prior to 1996, even if it had been 30 years previously with no subsquent problems, lost their ablity to possess a firearm. I've read the cases where the court explains that it isn't REALLY an ex post facto law but I haven't been persuaded. "

" Arlene, if you've got some personal issues with pride in being in the Clergy, or an NRA member maybe you should write your own letter to the editor about it. When did you become focus of this discussion? And how dare you say that God picks and chooses who he wants on the Clergy. All are welcome, it's our own choice whether or not we are. But I understand your piont. Your fundamentalist upbringing probably tought you that God chooses those that are worthy of representing him.

WAIT . . . what the hell am i talking about here! Again, this isn't about Arlene! It's about Paul's personal cry fest over not being able to own a gun. "

" Let's get back on track.

I think Embarrassment's comment meant this, --> NRA: wife-beaters need not apply.

This silly article Paul wrote only shows that he STILL denies his past. In the famous words of Dr. Phil, "you can't change what you won't acknowledge."

I know Paul Wood. Did y'all know he's been framed - EVERY TIME? That HE's the victim of lies and deceit? Well, except he admits he did "shove" his ex-wife once. WHAT A JOKE. I've SEEN the bruises he's inflicted on one of his victims. I've SEEN the absolute terror he inflicted upon her while he was stalking her. I've SEEN the door he kicked in (while she was on 911) and was only charged with destruction of property (he used that little fact against her time and again to get her to allow him back in). I've HEARD/SEEN him rant and rave in uncontrollable rage. We didn't know of his violent past until one kindly police officer finally pulled up his record during one of many domestic violence calls. And by the way, the 5 FVPA CONVICTIONS are against 4 different people at different times in his life.

BUT MOST DISCONCERTING IS THIS: My granddaughter, who was 16-20 months old during this time witnessed his violence. She STILL remembers, and STILL talks about "the bad man who kicked my mommy in the back," who "punched my mommy in the stomach," who "threw my mommy against the wall," who "punched mommy in the head," who "always made my mommy cry." And she tells of these events with incredible detail. She has had to go to a child-psychologist and was diagnosed with PTSD. My granddaughter lived with those fears and horrors until she could speak. SHAME ON YOU PAUL WOOD FOR THE DAMAGE YOU INFLICTED UPON THIS INNOCENT CHILD.

So just know that when this violence goes on in front of children - it changes who they are. It is traumatic - no matter how young they are. Their little hearts feel and hurt, they get scared half to death.

AND THIS MAN THINKS HE SHOULD HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? Paul Wood is the Poster Child of why this national gun law exists. Truly amazing! ::::::shaking my head in disgust::::::

Your article and bloviating rebuttals make no sense. Our ability to be independent thinkers is what makes us free? Gee, I thought it was the brave men and women of our military who did that. But with your military record you wouldn't know about that.

Paul, why don't you tuck your tail between your legs and crawl back into the hole you crawled out of.

P.S. Paul knows who I am, but in the interest of protecting my granddaughter I have not used names and I will sign this letter anonymously. I certainly hope HE will honor that (but I doubt it). "

" Arlene – Radical Moslems with your attitude would feel obligated to cleanse the other letter writers with a car bomb. We are all lucky you probably only have a few rifles. I am sure you believe yourself so self righteous, your religion so unquestionably correct, that ANYONE that disagrees with you is a messenger of the devil. Your god is THE god and all that don’t follow your dogma are infidels. I am not a Christian but I do have great respect for the compassionate teaching that Jesus was give credit for. I doubt very much he would entrust you as a messenger of his word – I don’t think god selected you, I think you selected yourself. "

" The right to bare arms? hahahahaha! How about bare legs, or bare chest, or bare stomachs???? "

" Anon: No, no. It's the right to ARM BEARS!! ;-) Watch out griz hunters. G.M. "

" Paul Wood should have thought about the consequences BEFORE beating his wife. Now he wants to whine like a baby about how mean the police are. This guy sounds like a real winner. "

" This is what happens when you provide internet connections for convicts in Rawlins. They end up writing letters to the editor about all the rights and priviledges that convicts should have. Paul Wood, get back to making license plates and breaking rocks. You're wasting our tax dollars. "

" It is the liberal governments way of continuing to disarm America. Also if you recieve a psycological evaluation from the military for any reason you are then denied by the ATF from purchasing a firearm, even if the test reveals you are mentally ok. "

" dixiecowboy, if you don't want to be disarmed..... don't beat your wife. It ain't rocket science, junior. "

" The Police are picking on poor Paul Wood from Casper, and dixiecup-boy. These fellows have shown me the light. Suddenly, I feel so sorry for all the criminals and scumbags of this world. They are misunderstood and they just need a second chance. We should let all the wife-beaters and child-molesters and drug-dealers out of jail. Not. "

" Oh, My GOD!!! Its no wonder our country is falling apart, i have never before seen so much hate. Personel values should never infringe on the legal rights of anyone in this country. I say this to Racheal Krueger, Micheal Faukner (her boyfriend) and Racheal Kruegers Mother (anonymous), oh also to Marsha Harrington, who like Racheal Krueger, dated Paul for some time...why dont you use your time to focus on your supposed "christian beliefs" of forgiveness and love. You sure do make a name for yourselves as "Christians". If your so bent out of shape with what Paul "Allegedly" did to you or you heard about, why dont you pray to your "God" and see if he will forgive you for the slander and unforgiveness towards one who has wronged you... if in fact he ever did. I find it interesting that the ones who claim to be so rightous, display a sense of such hate and show just how unrightous they really are. Whether or not Paul personally hurt you or didnt, its not your place to judge others based on your "poor me" story. Get over yourselves. You know, for someone so "dangerous" as Paul, you sure dont seem to have any reservations about bashing him online for giving his opinion, expecially if he is so dangerous and such a stalker that he may blow over the top like you claim he would and seek retribution on you. I personally believe that the above people are liars and cant seem to get over a bump in the road we call life. Hey Racheal and Marsha,,, take care of your kids if you havent put them up for adoption yet ( Racheal ) because teaching them to hate as you do is the first step to having them start burning crosses in front yards and holding klan meetings in our backyards. And Racheal, before you go making another big scene of your Poor life act that you and marsha want us all to beleive, remember that it was you who also claimed Rape in the court room, but your beloved justice system, that is "never wrong and always finds the proof in the victim", could not seem to find it in you. I guess according to your theory, your justice system found you to be a Liar.

P.S.Oh yeah, victims who are truelly vitims, try to get on with there lives and dont make it a habit to antagonize there supposed, Abuser. You make yourselves look like liars and you dont even seem to know it. Take my advice and stop while your not in over your head, as i remember correctly, slander is an infringement as well that can land you in a civil suit costing you money. Better chose your words wisely before your mouth costs you more than your butt can cash. "

" My post is not about owning a gun or the laws that effect gun ownership. Mine is about the law when it comes to restraining orders.

And contrary to some people, it is easy for an alleged victim to get a restraining order. It goes into effect immediately and the person who allegedly abused the victim is asked to follow it even before the accused or the accuser stands before a judge. It IS guilty until PROVEN innocent in this case.

Now for those here who know me, and you know who you are…name one time that I made excuses for, or covered for the behavior of an abuser?

Have I not gone above and beyond to see that this kind of behavior did not go unchecked? Therefore I am not here to make excuses for anyone’s criminal behavior. When someone is convicted of a crime, justice should be served. And I agree that family violence is a serious problem and should not be taken lightly at all!!!

To the rest of the readers, I don’t expect you to understand, but there are those here who do.

Now I will move on to my initial point.

Back in the day, when I got a restraining order, to try and keep an ex boyfriend from abusing me, I was told that if “I” broke the restraining order by contacting the ‘abuser’ the order would be null and void. This went a long way in keeping me from going back to him and for that I am grateful. It held me accountable and didn’t give me any leeway to try and use this ‘law’ against him unless I was going to keep to the order myself.

If you are fearful enough to get a restraining order, why would you want to then contact the abuser? Are you truly in need of protection, or are you using the system to get revenge? If the ‘victim’ contacts the ‘abuser’, the restraining order should be null and void just as it was when I obtained one.

This is the case in regards to one poster here. She got a restraining order against someone, but she obviously was not interested in staying away from him. On more than one occasion, I watched as his cell phone rang, as SHE was calling HIM! This happened AFTER retaining a restraining order against him. And this didn’t happen just once or twice, but repeatedly. And I am also not the only person who witnessed this.

Once a restraining order has been obtained, the alleged ‘victim’ should suffer consequences too if he/she decides to contact the ‘alleged abuser’. The law should be there for those who truly need it. And it should have safeguards so that no one can use it for the wrong reasons. "

" Words are funny in the fact that, you can say whatever you want and as long as you portray yourself as the victim, everyone with an opinion will take your side rather than use their own judgement to discern the truth from both sides. Pretty cool that you can all gang up on one person for having an opinion that you dont personally agree with, then bash him to hell for it. I bet you all feel pretty good about it to. I bet you will all vote to take away his first amendment right (which is the freedom of speech of course), the first chance you get. Heck, if you had it your way you would probably burn him at the stake to while your at it.
I am a practicing psychiatrist and it occurs to me that most of you obviosly have now idea what a true victim goes through after being abused by a loved one. They do not posses a post antagonistic attitude, the likes of which I see here. I agree with the last post on here about the victim truely being afraid. If you were truly afraid of this person, then you would not be in here posting such corrosive material.
Further more, if he is abusive as you claim him to be and holds no accountability to boundries or law, then my best advice to you is to, retreat from your quest to further ruin him before you become a victim of something far worse. Unless of course you are not even a victim in the first place and this is just a feeble attempt to play the victim role. Meanwhile, the real victims in this world will coninue to improve and rehabilitate themselves while you stew in the past and beg for more. "

" Michael Faulkner? Dating Rachel, Michael Faulkner? Here is some advice, first of all, give your own opinion in the opinion column instead of posting someone elses. Anyone can just post a law, or is that to hard? Lastly, next time you cheat on Rachel and then tell your secret friend that you decided to work things out with your fiance, dont use your real name and hers, if you do, dont go posting it on a public forum along side hers so that your ex-secret friend can see it and let her and the whole world know what a pig you are!!! Sorry Rachel, but its true. Maybe someday I will work up the nerve to tell you the whole story face to face at school. Oh yeah, If you beat your wife you should'nt have guns. "

" You talk about your Granddaughter but only the one. You forget the other granddaughter that your daughter had....Yes Rachael not your other Un-Wed while Pregnant Daughter...Oh Wait you dont know her because Rachael cant take care of the Daughter she has so she put her up for Adoption. This is proof that Unstable Woman with mental disorders should not be allowed to file Fake restaining orders in a court of law..But then Again you have to keep up your CATHOLIC VALUES and Claim rape that was never proved or convicted. "

" Poster of "Abuse of Restraining Orders"

I simply have to say Thank You to Karen Rae. I know for a fact that in the case I was speaking about previously, you hit the nail right on the head! This person simply will not let go of the past.

I happen to have been on both sides of the Domestic Violence fence in my lifetime. I don't like to admit that I have been an abuser, but I have been. And I am a woman, not a man.

I was raised in a highly abusive home. Got involved with an abusive young man. Took my past anger into future relationships and in abusive ways, vented it on those who did not deserve it. And I know just how serious a truly abusive relationship can be.

I also know that people can change. Not all people and granted this is not to say that people should look the other way when someone is being abused or is doing the abusing.

But I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible to face your demons, exorcise them and move on to a more healthy and productive way of life and into loving relationships.

My only hope is that those who are being harmed will be protected and that those who are falsifying claims or using the system for their own vendettas, are brought out into the open and treated appropriately. "

" You know...you so-called victims seriously need to get over youselves. Mr. Wood has moved on with his life, try doing the same. Just because he didn't want you doesn't mean you have the right to try to make him miserable for the rest of his life. As far as stalking....it is also considered stalking to continuously email and text him and his friends. You have done enough damage. Move on. "