Criminal domestic violence (CDV) plagues South Carolina, and I will support strong reform of our laws that, unfortunately, are more like the DUI laws which are designed for trial lawyers to get criminals off the hook instead of for you and me and the victims to receive justice. I cannot say, at this point, that the proposal is better than what we have. The bill on the Senate floor divides CDV into three levels of severity: first degree is charged when there is “great bodily injury” which essentially means near death, second degree is charged when there is “moderate bodily injury” when the victim was left unconscious, and third degree which means the victim suffered “physical harm.”
Now, first degree CDV is a felony in this bill and the convict has to go to jail for up to ten years. Second degree CDV, however, is a MISDEMEANOR. That’s right, someone knocks their spouse unconscious, and he’s guilty of a misdemeanor. Jail, even if convicted, is optional. More likely is a $2500 fine (less than three grand for beating your spouse senseless). This, unfortunately, is the definition of reform in the South Carolina Senate. The worst part, though, is that this so-called reform gives its proponents an excuse to further chip away at the 2nd Amendment (right after they chip away at the 1st with “ethics reform”).
All three versions of CDV outlaw gun ownership. Yes, knocking out your spouse is a misdemeanor, and you don’t even have to go to jail, but you will lose your Constitutional rights. But there’s more. Any judge or magistrate in South Carolina, under this bill, can decide that you are a threat, even if you’ve never done anything, and that one person can take away your rights. That’s right; you don’t even have to be convicted of anything to lose your 2nd Amendment rights at the whim of one person (elected by the General Assembly). I will be offering an amendment to make CDV 2 a felony (I just think if you leave your spouse unconscious on the floor that you should go to jail, but maybe I’m crazy) and to restrict the gun grab to actual CONVICTIONS for CDV 1 and 2. I don’t know if I’ll be successful because, after all, I’m fighting those in need of a photo opportunity, but I will do all that I can to stand up for your Constitutional rights while strengthening our CDV laws.
Senator:
ONLY when convicted of a felony should anyone (ANYONE!) lose their Constitutional right to possess and own a firearm. If CDV passes in any form that takes away that right on less than a conviction it will not withstand a legal challenge. Make the law mean something OR vote “NO” on anything that tries to do that but defies the basis of this country and this state.
One shouldn’t lose their right to defend themselves based on the opinion of a magistrate judge. He’s a person and may well be a Larry Martin type guy. In that case you lose your gun up to a year. It’s this type thing why we have jury trials, much more likely to not have a biased decision against you.
I can however compromise and say the party loses it’s rights for 30 days or such. BUT, what happens if a mans wife has a CWP and he wants to disarm her, fabricates a bewitching story and a judge takes her weapon? He then finds her afterward when she’s unarmed and assaults her? Yes, laws have unintended consequences AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM that could happen.
The people that get,s hurt are the ones that suffer.s the most. It is not right when they get off with a fine and back on the street,sVote NO .
Convoluting one issue with another is a typical government maneuver. The current issue du jour, CDV, is being used to obtain more gun control. No one understands the severity of CDV on a family than I. I witnessed my mother beaten mercilessly when I was young, but this was back in the day when it was considered “her fault”. So I am not disappointed to see this issue addressed, but try to keep your eyes on the prize and not water down the effort by turning it into another issue completely. Simply lay out severe penalties for the crime and allow the courts to review each case on its own merit. A man who has a wife rush him in a fit of anger and fall onto a piece of furniture is not the same as a chronic wife-beater.