The NRA Fights to Keep Guns in the Hands of Wife Beaters

[Purveyor]

Add another to the long list of things that the NRA considers less important than maintaining high profits for the gun industry: Preventing men from killing their wives after they’ve already been identified as a threat to do so. This article from the New York Times about the NRA’s dogged protection of the gun “rights” of wife beaters is absolutely nauseating. Over and over again, anti-domestic violence activists and legislators try to make it harder for men who have a hankering to kill their wives from arming themselves to do so, and over and over again, the NRA throws a fit and makes sure the sacred right of a man to control a woman through violence is protected. Considering how many wife beaters kill themselves after shooting their wives, it doesn’t even seem like a good use of NRA resources, as those men are dead now and can no longer continue to buy guns and line the NRA’s pockets. But we are talking about the same organization that’s decided to get into the fight over whether or not it’s rape if it’s not a stranger in the bushes, so perhaps being hateful to women is its own reward.
At stake here is whether or not states should be able to seize the guns of people who have restraining orders filed against them. The common sense answer is yes, as restraining orders aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on if there isn’t any attempt to actually, you know, restrain the violent person from acting violently towards his victim. Unless the people who have restraining orders put upon them are members of militias, they have no constitutional right to have guns. No one is proposing that these people be locked up without a trial. A good middle ground between protecting the right of due process and preventing wife beaters from murdering women who dare make the choice to leave them is to take the guns and make it harder for them to go on a killing rampage.

What’s interesting about this article is that pilot programs in California that are trying to enforce gun seizure are apparently very effective.

This demonstrates how the NRA is about protecting the interests of the gun industry over the gun consumer. By taking these quick measures, Det. Kovach is not only saving the lives of abused women, but he’s also saving the lives of the gun-owning abusers. As long as the gun is around, the temptation for an abuser remains high to grab it, chase down his ex-wife, and either kill or kidnap her. There is no good ending for a man who gives into that temptation, and so Kovach is doing these men a favor by taking that possibility off the table. We know for a fact that the first few months after a woman leaves her abuser are the most dangerous, because the abuser is really pumped up to regain control of the woman he has lost control of. There is no good that can come of letting men in that heightened state of anger and feeling out of control have guns.

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/19/the-nra-fights-to-keep-guns-in-the-hands-of-wife-beaters/

NYTimes Article:In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection

[pipoman]

1. A domestic violence conviction

or restraining order for domestic violence automatically disqualifies a person from purchasing a gun...since at least 1994.

All these NRA attributions are getting ridiculous. Politically repulsive? Yes. The cause of every problem faced by modern man? Not so much.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. It's beside the point if the gunowner can't buy a new one. The NRA

continues to fight common-sense law. The guns need to be taken away when the restraining order is issued.

"In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”

[pipoman]

7. If the FBI can only

pick up 10% of guns later found to have been purchased by a prohibited buyer, even though they know who they are and where they live...how is this idea even plausable.

In my state almost every single divorce filing includes a protection from abuse order, even when there was absolutely no indication of abuse in the marriage...even when it is a mutually agreed upon proceeding, there is a PFA. Every judge has the authority to require either party to surrender firearms, I've seen it happen many times.

Again, I am sure the NRA is pleased to hear that even civil procedure at the state level is their bitch..even though it isn't..

[nonoyes]

4. Conviction vesus restraining order versus order of protection

Not at all the same thing, now, are they? Nor are they the same nationwide. Nor does a "conviction" prevent a private sale. Nor does it force gun-owners to "automatically" be "disqualifed" from keeping guns they may already own.

The artlice compares and contrasts conditions and law enforcement procedures in two distinct states.

One might wonder if you bothered to read the entire article, or just lept to conclude the NRA is not involved, end of story.

[gejohnston]

6. under federal law, they are the same.

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse in all 50 states. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

[pipoman]

8. No, I am pretty well aware what I am talking about

on this topic..

BTW, see post #6.

[shenmue]

3. Son of a...

I'm almost speechless.

[kudzu22]

5. I understand the motive here is to protect women, but

There is that pesky fifth amendment.

No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law...

You can't seize property just on an order of protection -- that's not due process.

[Eleanors38]

9. I may have been mistaken when I supported the taking of weapons...

even temporairly as a result of a Temporary restraining order. The order would have to be permanent, wherein a hearing & due process is accorded, before firearms are confiscated or banned. Does a TRO afford any kind of due process wherein constitutional rights are suspended? If no, can this situation be changed?

[kudzu22]

10. I'm not a lawyer

and I don't fully understand the intricacies of legal proceedings. Maybe it's legal to make it illegal to own something while the subject of a TRO. Then you could be charged and tried for the crime of owning. Maybe that's a loophole they use to circumvent fifth amendment protections. In my opinion, it's still wrong. Is there a real difference between seizing property and making property illegal to own?