Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Travis Unholz - Prince of a Guy

The Orange County Register reports.

In a deal that will end his law enforcement career, a sheriff's deputy pleaded guilty Monday to injuring his wife and then violating a protective order by attempting to obtain a gun. 

Travis Christopher Unholz, 36, of Trabuco Canyon pleaded guilty to one felony count of attempted possession of a firearm in violation of a protective order and one misdemeanor count of domestic battery with corporal injury, according to a news release from the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

He had denied felony counts on both those charges earlier this month but took the offer from prosecutors and pleaded guilty to one of them as a lesser charge. Unholz was sentenced to 19 days in jail and three years of formal probation, including participation in a 52-week batterers treatment program.

He is also barred from owning or possessing any firearms, and a protective order was issued prohibiting him from having any contact with the victim or his two children for three years, prosecutors said.

It's a violation of federal law to posses a firearm after a domestic violence conviction, which will effectively end Unholz's law enforcement career.
This guy is a perfect example of the kinds of people you find among lawful gun owners. The overall percentage is low, but not nearly as low as they claim. Unfortunately, brutal, wife-beating, low-lifes are to be found in all groups. Perhaps among gun owners the percentage is actually higher than in the population at large. The testosterone-driven aggression, the adolescent belligerence, the terrible difficulty with authority, all lend themselves to anti-social behaviour.

I wish I had a nickel for every time one of the gun defenders said they don't know a single gun owner like that, that being anything negative like the description I offered above or anything else. They swear they don't know one who drinks too much or has a problem with anger.

Well, I give you former-officer Travis Unholz, exhibit A.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. "This guy is a perfect example of the kinds of people you find among lawful gun owners. "

    Um, no. Lawful people don't beat their wives, that's an unlawful act. In a Venn diagram there is zero overlap between "lawful citizens" and "wife beaters".

    Also, the guy is a cop, who statistically are far more in line with your stereotypes of gun owners, yet you still insist that they be allowed to carry guns.

  2. So your (ultimate) answer to avoiding this scenerio is to ban guns??? Nothing could be more illogical. Maybe we should make laws that deal with the person's behavior and not ignorantly try to abolish potential tools of destruction that he might use to commit a crime? (News Flash! There's already laws against hurting someone so why do we need gun laws too? I mean, everyone obeys the law by your (failed) logic)? Heck let's ban all dangerous objects a mental case might use to harm a person: knives, cars, heavy wrenches, screwdrivers, glass, ....bowling balls, hammers, and lets not forget spoons!! Oh, I could kill you with a spoon, trust me.

    And as an aftermath you have removed my right to protect myself from the very danger you put out there so proudly as the thing we should all fear!

    You! are the hypocritical fear monger, not the "gun zealots". Law abidding gun owners know thier reality, know thier threats, and if they choose a "scary gun" as the instrument to protect their !RIGHT! to live and to exist then your opinions are of no importance nor consequence. Keep wasting your time with this silly Blog.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

  3. This is someone who had been a lawful gun owner, and then ceased to behave lawfully after he owned a gun.

    Anonymous, however you might try to spin what mikeb wrote, this is so overwhelmingly obviously what he described as to make your statement ludicrous.

    People who legally have obtained firearms DO sometimes beat their wives after they have acquired firearms, or other weapons.

    Or are you going to try to assert that gun ownershp qualifies one for a lifetime of saintly, law abiding behavior, and that gun owners are incapable of behaving badly?

    THIS is the perfect illustration for why we continue to need gun checks AFTER the initial clearance to buy a gun previously.

    I'm so pleased I could connect the dots for you.

  4. Just more empirical evidence that Law Enforcement does not need access to gun when they're off the clock.

    Their firearms should be checked into an armorer upon starting, and ending a shift.


  5. "your opinions are of no importance nor consequence. Keep wasting your time with this silly Blog."

    thus spake anonytroll. A perfect example of the big, bad wolf huffing an puffing and blowing down his own house of cards.

    I've asked Mikebe30200 in the past who he thinks the anonytrolls are, but he's not answered. I've got my suspicions but it doesn't really matter. It is damned funny to listen to them whine.

  6. @BantheNRA, how much of the problem of firearm-related violent crime is from otherwise law-abiding people who choose to commit a crime, and how much of it is perpetrated by career criminals?

    Is it about 10%-90%? 5%-95%? I seem to remember seeing something that said that around 99% of violent crime is perpetrated by only 1% of people, and that 90% of those are all repeat criminal offenders. (If you've got something that proves the contrary, I'd love to see the stats, I'm just working from memory here).

    Now which of those two general groups is banning private possession of firearms on the street really going to effect?

    I fail to see the wisdom in writing laws that only effect a tiny fraction of a problem. Can you explain the logic of that to me?


  7. democommie, I'll bet if we checked the IP addresses of our anonymous commenters, something I wouldn't waste my time doing, by the way, we'd come up with some very familiar characters. Some of them have made blustering statements about not commenting here ever again, and naturally are embarrassed to do so, except anonymously.

    Orygunner, I don't know what the percentage is, but it's higher than you'd like it to be. I've already mentioned that I'm going to revamp the Famous 10% to more accurately represent you guys.

    1. This is so disrespectful. Travis was a close friend, family actually. I happened to have lived with him for quite some time. Do you know how disrespectful this is to my family and I? Not to mention him?! Are you kidding? Rethink this.

  8. Ok "this guy" was a great guy who loved his children. It crushed him to not see him and it deeply saddened his children. Might wanna think before disrespecting someone who was a loving guy. He was amazing until he was intoxicated. Alcohol changes people. Rethink your blog.

    1. Yeah, blame the alcohol. Fine. He is a great guy, but he's still an example of someone who should not own guns.

    2. This is the child of "this wife beating low-life" do you know, do you really know how much it hurts to see this? you shouldn't be one to write a blog when you didn't know him. do you know how much pain I still go through? it doesn't help to see you use him as a bad example ok? you are the low life who is making my father into someone seen for their actions not the personality. I hope you're happy with causing my family even more grief.