Saturday, August 17, 2013

Utah Gun Rights Activist Clark Aposhian Charged with Domestic Abuse and Stalking


(Al Hartmann | The Salt Lake Tribune) Clark Aposhian, Utah's chief gun rights activist and chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, appears in Holladay Justice Court on four charges, including domestic violence, for a Memorial Day incident at his ex-wife's house. Judge Augustus Chin ordered him to secure his weapons away from his home, car and person.
The 11-year-old daughter of Utah’s foremost gun advocate doesn’t feel safe anymore.
Ever since Clark Aposhian allegedly threatened his ex-wife and her husband outside their home on Memorial Day, the family’s attorney wrote, the little girl has had "obsessions" about her own well-being and frightening fantasies about "being stolen out of her home by her father."
In closing arguments filed in 3rd District Court this week ina civil stalking case against Aposhian, attorney Mitch Olsen wrote that the child’s "reasonable fear of bodily injury" and the anxiety Aposhian has caused his ex-wife, Natalie Meyer, is enough to compel a judge to permanently ban him from accessing his arsenal of an estimated 300 weapons. The case was filed by Ronald Meyer, the new husband of Aposhian’s ex-wife.
The arguments offer starkly different views of Aposhian and challenge Judge Terry Christiansen to decide whether he poses enough of a threat to merit banning him from the very things that have, for so long, defined him — his guns.
Christiansen’s decision, which is expected in about a week, will be the first indicator of whether Aposhian is seen as the aggressor in this conflict. His ruling could also influence the two other cases against Aposhian — his ex-wife’s petition for a protective order in Salt Lake City and a domestic violence case in Holladay.

I'm sure the ex-wife is making it all up.  He couldn't be a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit who is also an out-of-control bully, domestic abuser and all-around asshole.  Could he?

16 comments:

  1. Of course he could be, and if he is and a protective order is issued, then he'll have to get rid of the guns because he will be a prohibited person under federal law. He will lose his rights after due process--not by some magic that weeds him out and takes his rights away before he becomes abusive and says or does something that he can suffer consequences for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all like due process. Through it, Utah might be able to disarm this maniac before he kills somebody.

      Delete
    2. Come now, in the past, when we've demanded due process, you have called us "other rights fanatics" and mocked us.

      Or have you had a change of heart here like your change on the .50 BMG?

      Delete
    3. Also, your comment assumes his guilt and that any denial of the petition for a restraining order would be a failure that allowed a bad guy to keep a gun.

      However, the article only presents the allegations made against him. If they're true, then yes, he's a son of a bitch. However, I'm sure most people have heard of cases where the allegations were completely fabricated, hence the need for the presumption of innocence until due process has either proven guilt or determined innocence.

      Delete
    4. T., you must really be hard up for gotchas to keep repeating that .50 caliber thing.

      Trying to paint me as one who changes his mind all the time is weak, as far as personal attacks go.

      Why don't you let it go? Aren't there plenty of current issues we disagree on? Do you have to keep beating that .50 cal. thing even though I've pointed out that the "change" you've referenced repeatedly took place over 4 fucking years.

      Your desperation to catch me out knows no bounds of honesty. This one is based on the false accusation that I can't make up my mind or keep changing it.

      Delete
  2. I personally have a problem with the prohibition of gun rights due to protection orders. Protection orders are a civil procedure and therefor have a lower burden of proof than a criminal case. Protection orders are also often used by parties in divorce proceedings as tools to get a perceived upper hand. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
    While I'm sure there are many instances where they are requested in good faith and for good reason, the amount of misuse suggests that the potential to permanently lose your rights makes it hard to support it without fixing these issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you that the burden of proof is too low--I've known of two cases where the charges were false, but an order was issued and the people lost their gun rights until the order expired.

      However, even with this low standard of proof, it's interesting to see how the controllers still aren't satisfied with having to wait for this short amount of process and with having to show even this anemic level of proof.

      Delete
    2. Good point. It's a problem, but I'm afraid we have to err on the side of safety of women and children. Those who are wrongly disarmed will get their guns back in the end.

      Delete
    3. In this case, its a permanent order. Perhaps this is one of the changes that should be made.

      Delete
    4. Abuse of the powers of the government harms us all. That's what due process is meant to protect against.

      Delete
    5. No, guys, this is the due process that you continually claim I don't like. Now it sounds like you guys don't.

      Delete
    6. No, we've been talking about the consequences of a trial. This is an order that apparently can be based on no evidence whatsoever other than the biased statements of the person requesting it.

      Delete
    7. Mike,

      In the past, when we have demanded that no rights be lost without due process, you have called us "other rights fanatics." You are the one who has denigrated due process.

      Here, we are complaining that the process being given is not all that is due. The man may well be guilty, but the government is not being forced to prove its case sufficiently. It's really not all that hard to understand our position here.

      Delete
  3. 1. We've discussed this man before.

    2. No one said here that carry license holders are guaranteed never to commit a crime. What we've told you repeatedly is that the evidence shows that such people have a much lower rate of committing crimes than the general population.

    3. What's it called again when you take one person in a group and generalize from him about the whole group?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just thought I'd throw in an update I saw regarding this post.

    "Third District Judge Andrew Stone denied a protective order request from Aposhian’s ex-wife, Natalie Meyer, last Tuesday and ruled the woman has no reason to fear the gun lobbyist."

    "Aposhian still faces misdemeanor domestic violence charges in Holladay Justice Court, but his attorneys hope Stone’s ruling, which states there was no abuse or criminal trespassing on the Meyers’ property, will help them in fighting that case."

    "No physical violence • The judge dismissed this fear of physical abuse, noting her interactions with Aposhian had never escalated to physical violence in the past, and there was little evidence to show they were likely to in the future — two legal requirements of granting a protective order under Utah law."
    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57467159-78/aposhian-judge-meyer-wife.html.csp

    ReplyDelete