NRA Member Begs For Tighter Gun Laws After Losing His Sister To Gun Violence

[Starboard Tack]

Illinois-based Elvin Daniel is a National Rifle Association member and an experienced hunter. On Wednesday, he spoke at the first-ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence against women as a witness for the Democrats.

Elvin gave a tearful account of his sister Zina’s experience. In 2012, Zina was shot by her estranged ex-husband – and died. She’d had a restraining order against him, after providing evidence that he was dangerous (the ex-husband had previously slashed her car tires and made threats to physically harm her). Due to the restraining order, he should not have been able to buy a gun, but he had no trouble buying a gun online because private sellers don’t have to conduct background checks.
American women make up 84% of female gun victims in developed countries. Over 25% of these homicide victims in the United States are killed by an intimate partner.

Currently, two bills are being considered in the Senate to help prevent convicted domestic abusers or those proven to be a physical threat to women from obtaining guns. One bill, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), includes physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers among the group of people who cannot purchase or own guns. The second bill, introduced by Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), bans guns for anyone who has been issued a temporary restraining for domestic violence.

Despite the fact that the majority of Americans approve of these provisions, Congress usually faces great challenges to pass gun limits due to the opposition of the well-funded gun rights lobby. The NRA is already trying to knock down Klobuchar’s bill because it “manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for federal firearm prohibitions.”

more at link http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/01/nra-member-begs-for-tighter-gun-laws-after-losing-his-sister-to-gun-violence/

[gejohnston]

1. already federal law

Currently, two bills are being considered in the Senate to help prevent convicted domestic abusers or those proven to be a physical threat to women from obtaining guns. One bill, introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), includes physically abusive dating partners and convicted stalkers among the group of people who cannot purchase or own guns. The second bill, introduced by Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), bans guns for anyone who has been issued a temporary restraining for domestic violence.

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

One question:

bans guns for anyone who has been issued a temporary restraining for domestic violence

a permanent ban or while it is in effect? If the latter, I have a problem because of the lack of due process.
http://www.mendunimartindill.com/Divorce-Law/Domestic-Violence/False-Allegations-of-Domestic-Violence.aspx

While the majority of men murdered in the US is with a firearm, that isn't the case of women. With women, the plurality is by arson. See table five for details.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

[SecularMotion]

3. Please stop spreading misinformation

The law you are citing is a federal law which is rarely enforced or prosecuted by local law enforcement. Passing this legislation at the state and local level gives local law enforcement more power to apply the law.

[gejohnston]

4. not misinformation at all

Passing this legislation at the state and local level gives local law enforcement more power to apply the law.

Yes, but it is being introduced on the federal level. In order for it to be enforced by local authorities, it must be a state law, unless we chuck our federal system for a unitary system. If we do that, don't be investing in a Colorado pot shop. For that to happen, each state and territory would have to pass it as a state law.
I also said it was federal law. Domestic abusers reported to the FBI will not pass a background check.

[SecularMotion]

6. I'm glad you agree we need more legislation at the local level to disarm domestic abusers.

[gejohnston]

8. I'm sure many states have

similar laws or have a simple "violation is also a violation of state law" kind of law. Wyoming has that for NFA. Wyoming has a law that says "violating the National Firearms Act" is also a violation of state law. Or, simply require US attorneys to get off their ass and prosecute federal gun crimes and provide incentives for local authorities to gun things like felon in possession for both federal and state (if applicable) prosecution. It isn't double jeopardy since there are two different jurisdictions.

What is the point of having a law if it isn't prosecuted. It's like Durbin's bill to raise the highest penalty for straw buyers from ten to 15 years. Nice gesture, but unless it also changes the federal sentencing guidelines that gives straw buyers a fine to 18 months, it is pretty pointless.

While I agree with disarming domestic abusers, I'm also opposed to taking rights or liberties away based on unproven allegations. We also have to realize the fact that most domestic abusers, or anyone else who murders women, don't use guns. I think a good model would be Wyoming's possession of deadly weapon:

6-8-103. Possession, manufacture or disposition of deadly weapon with unlawful intent; penalties.
A person who knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs or sells a deadly weapon with intent to unlawfully threaten the life or physical well-being of another or to commit assault or inflict bodily injury on another is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both.

And how does Wyoming define a deadly weapon:

(iv) “Deadly weapon” means but is not limited to a firearm, explosive or incendiary material, motorized vehicle, an animal or other device, instrument, material or substance, which in the manner it is used or is intended to be used is reasonably capable of producing death or serious bodily injury

There was a case that went to the state supreme court where someone was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon appealed claiming that the frying pan he used was not a deadly weapon. The court disagreed because they are capable of producing death or bodily injury.

[napi21]

2. My husband has been a life timer member of the NRA since he was 21 and he's now 72.

He thinks the NRA is crazy and has told them so. He received a call one day from the NRA trying to convince him that Obama was going to take his guns away and that he was doing a terrible job as Pres. My husband told them they were crazsy and thast he thought Obama was doing a very good job since in office. The NRA rep hung up on him!

I think there are thousands of NRA members who agree with my husband, but I guess we aren't vocal enough. They're not making any money opn him either. The lifetime membership cost him $250 back when he was 21, but he hasn't paid a penny since. Whenever they call for my husband and I ask who's calling and it's the NRA, I simply tell them to drop dead and hang up!

[Fridays Child]

7. It would be interesting to know...

...how many NRA donation solicitors hang up on members (or are hung up on by members) who disagree with the organization's political tactics. Maybe the answer lies in individual donation statistics, over time. Somehow, though, I doubt that the NRA would ever willingly expose any cracks in their armor.

[Starboard Tack]

11. I hope there are many members like your husband

They need to speak out more. Good for you for hanging up on these idiots!

[jimmy the one]

23. nra = nutty rightwingers, armed

napi: My husband has been a life timer member of the NRA since he was 21 and he's now 72.
He thinks the NRA is crazy and has told them so.

Your husband could join company with ex president HW Bush & renounce his lifetime nra membership, napi.
He'd be in good company with the late norman schwarzkopf too, who did the same thing.
Was a better group in the 60's for sure, but now? degenerate.

NRA, nutty rightwingers armed.

[Thinkingabout]

5. One person killed who has been involved in domestic abuse is too many.

Why can't the NRA at least be sensible about who is capable in owning a gun? Why can't the NRA promote safety as in their earlier days? The NRA runs out and fund raises on every opportunity, I can see why so many is wanting to get away from the NRA.

When someone has a restraining order as a result of domestic violence then decides to do harm to their victim, where does the victim get due process? Domestic violence is usually a ongoing process, if the abuser does not seek help for their problem and follow through, why shouldn't the abuser be denied the ability to purchase weapons?

[gejohnston]

9. Most domestic abusers don't use guns

where does the victim get due process? There is a Glock commercial for that. In general, I agree with you.

[Starboard Tack]

12. I agree. The NRA has lost its soul.

It has made a Faustian deal with the gun industry and cares nothing about public safety anymore.

[Eleanors38]

10. The diff between existing fed law and this new legislation is veneer-thin nuance.

Even if every LOCAL LEO, as well as the unenforced measures Already on federal books were enforced, a woman threatened like the one in the OP is in dire straits: Punks who stalk, attack and threaten like this Will Not Let Up. No amount of LEO diligence is going to stop them unless the victim can hold out til the cops arrive. Murder & Suicide seem inextricably wound together in these instances. Potential victims in the situation described must face this reality:

Either defend yourself, or rely on some other entity to attempt it.

[Starboard Tack]

13. You have a point, but I hope you are wrong.

Such legislation is definitely a cure-all for domestic violence and homicide, but if it can keep guns out of the hands of only a few of these assholes, then it will be worth it.
Ideally, there should be a psych testing system to filter out the violent nuts. Waiting for them to go off is not the answer. At the very least, when a restraining order is applied for, then there should be a psych evaluation.

[Eleanors38]

14. Frankly, if someone has a restraining order & has threatened

or attacked another, you don't need a psych evaluation to prevent him or her from obtaining arms. The question turns on what practical effect such legal steps would have, short of an armed police escort 24-7.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I agree. That combined with the aggressor's determination.

Unfortunately, most of the burden is on the victim, which is really fucked up, but that's the reality. Either she goes down the potential slippery slope of arming herself, or she disappears off his radar if she senses he is a real danger.
Fortunately, there are refuges for battered women in many towns in America, but more needs to be done.

[krispos42]

16. And yet....

The gun control movement keeps pushing for bans on assault weapons, gun registration, and arbitrary magazine limits.

Almost as is they care more for fighting a culture war rather than passing effective, popular laws.


Hmph.

[TIMETOCHANGE]

17. I'm sorry, but were you expecting genuine concern?

There are some who legitimately care about the plight of abused women. Enough anyways to back a law regarding guns, not much else from everything I've seen. I tried to start a non-profit for women who were victims of domestic violence and forced sex trade so they could get legal aide, sue their abusers, fight for their children, etc. etc. etc.. I went to a bunch of different liberal organizations and not one even wanted to offer a token amount of aid.

Victims of domestic violence need real help. Not this this feel good does nothing bullshit. We need to pass a law where a woman who is a suspected victim of domestic violence can go to a government agency and take out a loan against her future income tax returns to the tune of $15,000. So she can get real shelter, and a real start outside the home of the abuser. Victims of domestic violence tend to have very little to begin with. Their junk is often all they have and they can't just let it go (I can't tell you how many times clients have quibbled with me over a used ten year old TV in a divorce, or a bedroom set that is over twenty years old).

We also need to pass micro-interest rate loans (1%) for victims to return to school for nursing or any kind of higher education that would give them a shot of earning an income in excess of $25,000 a year.

None of that is going to happen. Instead a feel good law that will do almost nothing will get passed.

Oh and victims should arm to defend themselves, abusers hate it when they find out their victims now have guns. I've gotten threatening phone calls from abusers after they found out their victims had guns (after they had violated the restraining order [and the courts and law enforcement did jack squat]). I think every victim of domestic violence should be armed and trained so long as they are mentally competent.

[Starboard Tack]

18. You think victims should arm to defend themselves?

Really? That statement makes one question your claims of having worked with abused women.
Sounds like you are advocating for them to either wind up dead or in prison.

Abused women tend to be easily manipulated. That's why they are victims. They almost invariably return, time and again to their abuser. Their self esteem is close to zero.

And you expect them to magically turn into tough, no-nonsense gun-toting women overnight.
No wonder you couldn't raise any money from the liberal organizations you approached.

They need help, yes. But not guns. They need serious support and therapy.

This law may do little good, but if it saves one life it will be worth it.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Not to take one side or the other re: arming victims, but....

As to this statement:

This law may do little good, but if it saves one life it will be worth it.

In the education world we often here from teachers and admins "if I can just change one student's life..." and that attitude is challenged, rightly so.

What about the other 30 odd kids in the classroom? One is not good enough.

In this instance, saving one life might be worse than doing nothing because the passage of an impotent law provides a false sense of comfort and may perpetuate the problem of passing feel-good half measures that don't address the real problems.

As to the larger issue, the senate hearings, I strongly support holding them and I'm glad folks are able to speak out, but I hope that more is done on a state-by-state basis because federal legislation tends to be less effective and has a greater chance of being challenged and lost in the courts.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Good point.

Not sure your education analogy is apt in this case though. It isn't about leaving 30 kids behind in order to boost one. It isn't about leaving anyone behind, just a half ass measure that might do some good and no harm.
On this particular issue, spousal abuse, it may well be better to deal with it on both state and federal levels. The problem I see with any kind of gun legislation, it seems pointless to have such a variance between states, especially when it comes to access and CC licensing.
If there is to be reciprocation regarding concealed carry, then clearly there should be a federal standard of compliance, and a federal permitting system.

[TIMETOCHANGE]

20. Wow, I don't know where your analysis started, if it ever started.

I never advocated for women being armed as part of my non-profit. You could have asked if I did, but it seems like you just went and "assumed" and we all know what that makes a person. Also "Sounds like you are advocating for the to either wind up dead or in prison." Please explain that logic, because I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you used/had any when you typed that out. I'd like to think, even though experience has taught me better, that you had at least an iota of logic when you typed that out.

Yes, some abused women return to their abusers, but that's mostly out of necessity because they have no money, no job, no hope. Thus why I put in my post that we needed to create an arm of the government that actually helped provide those things. You know actually do something other than lie to ourselves that a law will make a real big difference. A progressive solution, not bullshit.

But women who get away from their abusers, or need to get away from their abusers, are sometimes in danger of being victimized because their abusers consider them unarmed and helpless. Now I get that some folks want victims unarmed and persecuted. There are some sick scum like that out there who gleefully enjoy their sadistic streak by learning of others being persecuted and harmed, and killed, because that person was disarmed. I've had clients tell me they'd rather be dead than get a gun. Fine that's their choice. And when I've cut them off from free legal help they've bitched and whined and I've explained to them that my help is for those who want to live and live free, not die for a principle.

I've seen over a dozen real life instances where arming a woman helped keep her from being a victim. Helped her get over being a victim. It's not a mystical talisman. But a woman being stalked, harassed, and having her ex show up on her door beating on it and threatening to force their way in, guess what, should have a gun and should know how to legally use it. Because an ex who kicks in a door and is in violation of a restraining order, isn't there to give her a hug and chocolates (maybe you think that but I don't know, I'm just going off your posts so feel free to elaborate), and the woman should have a legal means of defending her life.

This law will do little good, there's a hell of a lot more that needs to be done, but it won't be. And there will be more victims that could be prevented if we just pulled our hands out of the sand and made intelligent, precise, and realistic solutions for these problems. But that won't happen because you'll have the anti-gun zombies going "GGUUNNNSSSS BAAADDDDD."

[Starboard Tack]

22. I didn't say you did advocate arming women as part of your non-profit.

I was referring to your mention of being rejected and how I understand how that could happen, considering your rather hot headed and rather idealistic post.

Oh and victims should arm to defend themselves, abusers hate it when they find out their victims now have guns. I've gotten threatening phone calls from abusers after they found out their victims had guns (after they had violated the restraining order ). I think every victim of domestic violence should be armed and trained so long as they are mentally competent.

I seriously doubt that you have had the experience you claim, regarding abused women. You come across as somewhat of a bloviator. Maybe you've seen some movies, or fantasized such things, and now you are grandstanding on an internet blog. Obviously, you are young and trying to prove yourself, but trying to come across as an authority on this subject can be extremely dangerous.

The last thing a woman needs in these situations is a gun, and to suggest it is just plain stupid.
I do not think guns are bad, btw. They are not the solution for battered women. You need to think before you post such nonsense in the future.