DO GUNS BELONG IN THE HANDS OF DOMESTIC ABUSERS?
DO GUNS BELONG IN THE HANDS OF DOMESTIC ABUSERS?
Kelly Roskam of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a major firearms case before the Supreme Court
Kelly Roskam of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions discusses a Supreme Court case that will decide if a federal law prohibiting possession of firearms by people subject to domestic violence protection orders is constitutional
You're viewing a single thread.
No. They don’t. If you’re not a responsible person you cannot be a responsible gun owner.
This is a rather conservative supreme Court though. I honestly think they might find that gun rights trump an abuse survivor's right to safety.
It's not just gun rights. It's really a 5th ammendment issue that due process is required to deprive a person on life, liberty, or property.
It's not even a gun rights thing. It goes deeper. The conservative movement has the ideal of the Pater Familias, the male head of the family who holds the power of life and death over the members. In every way that matters, the Pater Familias owns their wife and children.
That's the traditional family that they want to bring back.
The thing is, even in ancient Rome (where the term was created) the community would often step in and take the family away if the abuse got too bad.
All throughout human history, if a husband beat his family too much, the other men in the community might "have a word" with him. Sometimes that was a quiet conversation, and sometimes it was a beating with the wife and kids staying suddenly with her sister.
It was only after we started living in cities that people started "minding their own business".
And yes, there have always been abusers who have been clever about hiding their abuse. But the conservative ideal of a man who could do whatever he wanted to his own family, never actually existed.
Domestic abusers shouldn't have guns...this is true.
The problem is that responsible people get protection orders issued against them all the time (and what's being discussed are protection orders, not convicted abusers)...because many states require no proof other than the word of the accuser...which inevitably leads to people weaponizing the process out of petty revenge or anger solely to make life hell for their ex. People convicted of domestic abuse would still lose their guns. What the article is discussing is whether people who've been accused without evidence should continue to have their rights stripped or not.
Where do they issue protective orders without more than the word of the accused?
Temporary POs, yes. But actual POs are pretty hard to get. Mine was denied even though my abuser plead guilty to domestic violence because the courts believed he should have the parental right to abuse his children without supervision, too.
The current precedent that is being used to apply the law makes no distinction between "protective order" and "restraining order". It also makes no distinction between "protective order" and "temporary protective order" nor does it recognize a distinction between "restraining order" and "temporary restraining order". So considering that, and because the naming convention varies from state to state, we're forced to consider all those terms equal under the current interpretation of law and current court precedence.
You've already admitted that Temporary POs are easy. How easy? In most states, the only requirement is a signed affidavit from an accuser claiming they feel threatened. That's it.
I'm not going to go look it up state by state to give you the requirements, but I did look up California's (since they have such a huge population and since many other states base their own laws on the precedence that California sets). In California, an EPO (emergency protective order) can be granted solely from "a person's allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse". See California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250 Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA Victim Protection Statutes.pdf
That's it. Also in California (and in many other states), EPOs are temporary, but can be repeatedly extended until some upcoming court date can decide on a permanent resolution (and this can take weeks to months). Also in California (and in many other states), a domestic EPO is sufficient to deny someone access to firearms, revoke their concealed handgun license, etc. Here's the quote from the State of California Emergency Protective Order Bench Guide for judges:
Any EPO issued prohibits the restrained person from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition during the term of the protective order. A violation of this prohibition is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in jail, a $1000 fine, or both.15 Any firearm must be surrendered while the protective order is in effect. Additionally, in a gun violence EPO (form EPO-002), ammunition, including magazines, must also be surrendered.
And that bit about "must be surrendered"...comes with some pretty big penalties also. When surrendered, the state takes possession and assigns fees to the subject of the order for hanging onto them...and then if/when the protective order is ultimately lifted or defeated in court, that poor bastard still needs to hire a lawyer to navigate the legal system and all the forms and filings to get them back. One fraudulent protection order ends up costing the subject tens of thousands of dollars.
...And this is the precedent that is currently being challenged.
I had my own brother crashing on my couch for 4 months for this very issue (his ex had filed a fraudulent one against him without needing any more evidence than an allegation....and 3 months into it (after a dozen extensions), she threatened to file one against ME for refusing to let her into my house where he was staying. Obviously, some protection orders are valid and necessary, but the system is currently easily abused by anyone who wants to make their ex's life miserable and there are ZERO repercussions for filing a fraudulent protection order. I think it's fair to reconsider how many rights we are willing to violate against an innocent person before there is due process in a court proceeding.
My wife wasn’t given a protection order when a threat was made on her life by her ex. Cop said it was free speech.
If some people losing their right to own guns based on a false accusation also means that some different people don’t get murdered by their psycho exes, is that a good thing on balance?
If some innocent people get executed, but that also means that different, highly-dangerous criminals get executed, is that a good thing on balance?
I’m not sure what your point is.
The point is that infringing people's rights because there -might- be some public good is a horrible precedent.
If you have enough evidence for protective order, then there should be enough for a criminal trial. If you don't have enough for a criminal conviction, then IMO you shouldn't have enough evidence to remove a person's civil rights. A person that has been convicted of a domestic violence offense--including misdemeanors--is already a prohibited person.
I'm not sure what relevance your previous post has to this topic.
Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important. As for the right to own a firearm, I'm of the opinion that it's past time to revisit this amendment. People living in countries without something similar to the 2nd amendment aren't less free. In fact I'd argue they're more free as they don't have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.
As for your point about protective orders. Did you read the article? The rationale is discussed there.
In fact I’d argue they’re more free as they don’t have to worry about being involved in a massacre just because some white male incel fuckup is having a bad day.
Fortunately, the only reason to have such fear is media sensationalism and your personal failure to understand the statistics.
Despite the fearmongering, you're still not even close to likely to experience one.
You're perfectly OK with the amount of gun-related deaths in the US?
People also argue that China is more free than the US because people aren't burdened with the need to choose which party they prefer, or worry about speech that may run counter to the party's beliefs. And hey!, they have healthcare!
Personally, I believe in civil rights, including the ability to be a religious fundamentalist of any stripe, to say dumb shit that's devoid of reason without being politically persecuted for it, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (all of which are constantly being eroded by SCOTUS), and yes, the right to own the firearms of your own choice.
Anyway, rights are not people, people are more important.
By this argument, you could claim that an absolute totalitarian gov't that allowed no freedom of any kind and ruthlessly prevented any criminal activity would be a better choice than a style of governance that allowed for any person freedom at all, since all freedoms can be misused in ways that cause harm. By eliminating all rights, you ensure that the gov't has the ability to keep the maximum number of people safe and secure. You don't even have to go that far; you could claim that speech that is politically unpopular should be criminalized, that any religion to the right of Unitarian Universalists causes harm to people and society and should be excised, that it's necessary for the police to have broad search and seizure authority to prevent harmful activities, and so on and so forth.
By going from revisiting the 2nd amendment straight to Chinese totalitarianism you're showing a complete lack of nuance and critical thinking which makes your opinion less than interesting to me.
There are plenty of countries which exercise gun control and they're not any less free than the US. Many are more tolerant, more progressive and their societies are fairer and more equatable for everyone.
Congrats! I, too, don't care about the opinions of people that wish to limit civil rights for individuals!
Just to point out, many of those societies with gun control that were traditionally more tolerant and progressive are also trending right and limiting civil rights at alarming rates. Sweden is trying to make (has made?) burning a Q'uran a crime. France has banned the niqab in numerous public places, and Marine Le Pen keeps getting more and more popular. So if the choice is being armed while fascists are taking power, versus being unarmed while fascists are taking power, I'm gonna take the former every time.
Some people will say yes and some people will say no. The same argument you made could be used to outlaw a LOT of human behavior, though.
For me personally, I universally don't think it's fair that I could be stripped of some of my rights without due process - that bit is important to me regardless of whether that is used for wrongdoing by others or not. A better solution would be to make due process happen faster, imo...or for the state to take a more proactive role in protecting the accuser until that due process runs its course.