Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spanone

(135,831 posts)
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 09:52 AM Mar 2013

Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns

Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.

Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared.”

The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.

About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?pagewanted=print

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns (Original Post) spanone Mar 2013 OP
Let's predict Team NRA's response to this story: geek tragedy Mar 2013 #1
This - from page 4 of the article malaise Mar 2013 #2
So The NRA made sure Mr. Holten's guns or second amendment wasn't taken away from him BUT diabeticman Mar 2013 #3
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
1. Let's predict Team NRA's response to this story:
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 09:54 AM
Mar 2013

1) Just because they get accused doesn't mean they lose their constitutional rights;

2) Wife-beaters need assault rifles to protect themselves against . . .

3) Gun-grabber!!!

4) Like we're supposed to value the safety of women over guns.

Others?

malaise

(268,993 posts)
2. This - from page 4 of the article
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 09:58 AM
Mar 2013
“It astounds me,” Mr. Ridout said. “I cannot believe we have a society where a person has physically abused another person and been charged with assaulting her and that they don’t automatically take away his weapon.”


You see his second amendment rights mean more than her right to life.

diabeticman

(3,121 posts)
3. So The NRA made sure Mr. Holten's guns or second amendment wasn't taken away from him BUT
Mon Mar 18, 2013, 10:01 AM
Mar 2013

it's okay in the NRA's eyes that Ms Holten's life was ALMOST taken away by Mr Holten.

I suppose in Wayne-I-want-all-the-guns-in-the-world-La Pierre's mind The best way for the state and Ms. Holten to handle this mess is that she have a gun of her own to protect herself from that bad man with a gun.





Can we please GET some Common sense on Gun Control NOW?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ruled a Threat to Family,...