first?

I don't see the problem. He had access to the gun when he beat her. He showed restraint.

Dad?

Regarding the story: meh. He didn't *shoot* his wife.

/drta

This is a law that preseumes guilt. My father recently had his second wife walk out on him (found a new boyfriend). Before leaving she racked up 70k in credit card bills, was farking some guy behind his back, and (to add insult to injury) filed a report with the local police dept that he had threatened her life. My father is an avid gun collector (I don't get it personally, but he seems to enjoy it) so the police served him with paper work stating he wasn't allowed to possess firearms until after the trial.

They took a lying whores word over his, no witnesses. He lost the right to possess firearms based on her accusations. The court system has been swamped here and his trial keeps getting pushed back. This occured over a year and a half ago. No end in sight.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty my ass.

@ submitter:


so?

Exemption Saves Man Jail Time

BANGOR -- A Fairfield man has been granted a reduction on his prison sentence on gun charges in federal court because of an exemption to hunters and outdoorsman.

Instead of serving more than 3 years in a federal prison, Steven Lemieux, 42, of Covell Road, was sentenced last week to 8 months in jail, with about four months already served.

Lemieux was convicted in state court on a charge of domestic assault in 2004. The assault did not involve use of a firearm, but according to federal law, anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Lemieux's lawyer Donald Brown of Brewer said a sporting use exception was appropriate because all of his client's firearms were related to sport shooting or target practice.

"It's not rare in Maine to be an issue, but it's used only for people who possess guns for sporting," Brown said. "Even a felon or in a case of domestic violence, the sporting purpose exception can be used to say 'We're going to give you a little bit of a break here.'"

In 2004, Lemieux was convicted of domestic violence.

In 2005, state agents, acting on tips that he still had weapons in his house , searched the place and seized nine guns. All but one of the guns were firearms used for hunting or target shooting. He was sentenced to 77 days in jail.

This February, a federal grand jury in Bangor indicted Lemieux, charging that he lied twice -- once while on state probation -- on federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives transaction record forms, which he filled out trying to buy a .45-caliber pistol from Jim's Gun Shop on Bay Street in Winslow.

The question in federal court was whether Lemieux was entitled to the sporting use reduction in his sentence because he was on state probation when he tried to buy the gun at the Winslow shop. The U.S. Attorney's office said he was not entitled to it.

The judge disagreed.

Lemieux was found guilty of falsifying federal firearm forms in April after a one-day jury trial.

Brown said that under federal sentencing guidelines, Lemieux faced between 32 and 48 months in prison. With the hunter's exception, the guideline calls for a sentence of 0 to 8 months of incarceration.

In his ruling dated last week, U.S District Judge John Woodcock Jr. wrote that the sporting purpose reduction is "curious" since it reduces the prison time on possession of a firearm for lawful sporting purposes for a defendant convicted of illegal possession of a firearm.

In applying the sporting exemption, Woodcock had to consider the number and type of firearms in Lemieux's possession, the amount and type of ammunition, the actual use and location of the guns, his criminal history and to what extent possession of firearms was prohibited.

The judge found that Lemieux was a hunting enthusiast and that there was no history of criminal use of guns.

The federal statute reducing the sentence can not apply to people convicted of drug offenses or crimes of violence or those found to be in possession of illegal short-barreled shotguns.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joel Casey declined to comment on the case.

Doug Harlow -- 861-9244

dhar­lowen­ia­mlart­necco­m

For those who can't see the article

/Mainer
//ayuh

You could buy her that deer skin parka, or you could just refrain from beating her.

I'm sure she would appreciate either one.

Strange stuff indeed. It's no different than saying you've been convicted of spousal abuse. You can no longer eat ice cream.The Maine law that shortens a sentence due to being a hunter is bizarre, in any case. What if he owned the same exact guns but didn't hunt? A $20 dollar license equals a lessor sentence? Licence sales should go through the roof after this case.

They also shortened his sentence because he couldn't get theyah from heeyah.

/also Mainer
//now in Florida
///WTF?!?!

He already told her twice and still didn't shoot her. Shows restraint.

Seriously though, apples and oranges.

And in reality, husbands rarely use personally owned firearms to shoot their wives. Maine has a pretty low crime rate as well, and lots of firearm owners.

California has the same BS law - a woman just needs to make a wild accusation and *bam* her husband loses his guns, whether or not there's any truth to her tales at all.

/seen it happen

Also, I nominate God-is-a-Taco to STFU...and recommend he slow down on the Mt. Dew intake

\Oh, you know you wanted first
\\Nothing to see here
\\\Continue

Nobody cares who posts first, loser.

I just wanted to congratulate Burntoast27 for being first.

Well, what we learned from today's lesson is that all the gun nuts WISH he would've shot her. Nice job, guys.

/Beating your wife != restraint

Uhmmmmmmmmmm.
Sometimes the lady is violent, too.
[ducks]

What's really retarded is that in most States, if you recieve a temporary restraining order, the police can come and take your firearms. TPO's don't require any conviction, trial, or anything else, judges rubberstamp them.

Makes me wish I was gay.

raistphrk: /Beating your wife != restraint

You're not married, are you?

I believe the "Maine Law" reference is incorrect due to the fact that having a gun after battery on the spouse is a violation of Federal Law (or so the story says..)and since Fed Law supercedes State law, the exemption must be a Federal loop-hole (which I plan to exploit should I ever beat my wife with a gun...oh wait I don't got no wife! Whew... Neeever-Mind.)

just shoot everybody.

Hey, women could use this as a way to murder their husbands.

1)make up false complaint. Cops will take the guns based on her word alone.
2)when the guns are gone, sneak your own home and shoot husband, since he's now defenseless
3)make up 'battered woman' crap and cry a lot.
4)write book
5)profit!!

So true VulgarMind. Note how today it is called the legal system instead of the justice system.

Wife-beating is always done at close range, and there are a million handy objects suitable for killing someone, so having a gun or not having a gun makes no real difference. I'm entirely with Maine on this one.

Since they live in the same house, they're her guns too. So if he tries to beat her up again, she can shoot him. I dont see the problem here...