I don’t think that’s too much to ask that a temporary restraining order include gun-restrictions but apparently Congress does. And apparently Wayne La Pierre’s NRA pays them a lot not to care.
The flaw in the extreme domestic gun ban is that it applies to convictions for even the slightest violent incidents in the home—-even against domestic partners who do not own weapons of any kind, where no weapons were involved in an incident, nor in cases resulting in no serious or permanent injury, or where the partners have remained together without further incidents. The ban applies to domestic partners even convicted of a minor pushing or slapping incident with a spouse or with a partner that leads to a restraining order. The extreme law denies the right to purchase a firearm for life.
As Justice Clarence Thomas observed in a recent argument before the Court, the ban on gun ownership even in domestic violence cases not involving firearms is an extremely unique punishment. And it is unconstitutional, as a uniquely draconian form of collateral punishment, not least because it denies the ex-felon his or her 2nd Amendment right to legitimate self-defense with a firearm even under the Court’s Heller decision.
Worse, the collateral gun penalty from domestic incidents, like the denial of a felon’s right to vote for marijuana possession, falls mostly on racial minorities, the poor and those without the means to vacate the convictions. But, then, as is so often the case, that outcome may all along have been the intent of its legislative sponsors, mostly so-called liberal Democrats.
2
At the very least, could the govt tax the living daylights on ammunition? Sure bullets can be fabricated D.I.Y., but it's time consuming and takes some skill.
I am not optimistic about Congress taking away an abuser's "right" to have guns in order to save women's lives. Look have quickly they acted after the Sandy Hook massacre. They don't give a rat's patootie about children's lives either.
1
It takes two to tango.
Ever try and help someone you love out a situation like this? They always go back. They go for "the bad boy" in the first place (often haven been abused earlier in life), then before long they are fully in a horrible situation (kids etc.), they naturally get "Stockholm Syndrome" and lie and protect their abusers end on end, often dropping it if it gets to the cops or court.
i just see a lot of stone throwing at the obvious Male targets. This a two sided situation and I don't ever see society acknowledging the female's plac, resposibilities or piece of the puzzle. And yes, it's all very disheartening.
No. My husband changed in 2012 into someone I did not recognize. His behavior escalated dangerously by 2016. I saw my doctor to ask for a mental health referral, she asked why, I explained, and she said flatly, "That's not depression, that's abuse."
I made preparations to leave starting in August 2016, and had all my ducks in a row so that I could hand him divorce papers by that December.
We were immediately labeled a "high conflict divorce" owing to his diagnosed personality disorder.
Every move I have made has been to protect myself and my children. It is a long, slow process. We began a custody evaluation in June that was only just finalized last week. It says: he is obsessive, sarcastic, impulsive, quick to anger, and has little insight. It also said his risk of violence is "low" (according to the custody evaluator) because the custody evaluator asked him if he would ever harm his children and he answered, "It is against my beliefs." (That evaluator was never in our home and never saw him sharpening a knife above my head or screaming at the children and chasing them all over the house.)
I had an easier time leaving because:
1. I had education about the abuse cycle when much younger - although it took me years before I understood it was abusive, not just depression.
2. I have a job with wages.
3. I had the means to employ a lawyer to help.
4. I have supportive parents.
5. I have supportive friends.
One of those five key pieces missing: that much harder.
3
Restraining orders only work against sane people. Or people who aren't criminals. To anyone violent, they provoke too often an attack, as the file a restraining order involves the police and courts and if they have any prison record the idea of being back in the system or on parole is so infuriating they don't see a future and go ballistic.
6
This happens far too often. See the case of Stephanie Goodlow
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Youth-Minister-Killed-in-Southe...
She had a restraining order against him. They don't work.
/The federal government waits too long to bar guns from violent homes./
Violent "homes"?
2
Why is it that the feverish push to sell guns supersedes any common sense, and our history of failing the victims in the process? Is it greed, or stupidity plus rigid ideology to place the second amendment before the first, a republican fetish that is not only reprehensible but deeply unjust, as it tampers with lives lost to domestic abusers in our midst, repeatedly? Those complicit in the 'pornographic' abuse of their office must stop, the shrugging and the looking the other way is despicable. Who are they kidding? The grieving family?
3
I am happy that she survived! Lock this abuser up for a looong time.
How does he benefit if HIS small childrens' mother is dead at his hands? Yes, I know, I'm assuming that a thought process exists.
1
Obtaining custody of children is more lucrative in a lot of states than working at a median-wage job (since tax-free child support will exceed after-tax earnings). A domestic violence allegation is one of the standard American techniques for winning custody (though, oddly, once the cash starts flowing the winner is then usually quite content to park the children with the alleged abuser ("loser parent") every other weekend!). Since the U.S. has the largest percentage of children living without their two biological parents, this leads to courts being flooded with domestic violence allegations. In any given case it is easy to say "the judge should have seen what would happen," but remember that the judge may be hearing literally dozens of domestic violence allegations every week. It is a nice fantasy that a judge or a jury can always figure out the truth, but unfortunately it does seem to be a fantasy, especially when justice is run at an assembly line speed.
1
You are forced to leave your children with an abuser by the court, otherwise the court may decide you are the crazy one and take your children away. My husband's behavior escalated over a four year period to the point that he was swearing at the children, brandishing knives at me, chasing the children, screaming at them, screaming at me, throwing dishes so they shattered, and more. He said he fantasized every day about murdering a boss who had fired him YEARS before - every time he drove past that work place which was every day. He said he wanted Al Qaeda to kidnap her and rape, torture and decapitate her in front of her children.
He never hit us. He probably would have or more if I had thought, "I'll just get my youngest up to college." She was five at the time.
The judge decided that my request for supervised visitation was "too harsh" - her exact wording.
The custody evaluator decided that his risk of violence was "probably low".
I sure hope so.
His capacity to bear a grudge lasts years. I tend to think he might be angrier at his wife (me) than he is at a boss at a part time job.
I don't think I will ever feel safe ever again.
And it can be nerve wracking to leave my children with him.
1
Most Americans, gun-owning and non-gun-owning, support the 2A *and* want to see some sanity applied to gun regulations and laws. The real problem is, gun manufacturers are publicly traded companies which are solely focused on quarterly profits and thus strive to sell as many guns as possible 24/7. They, in turn, fund their propaganda machines, the NRA and NSSF, and followers of these organizations are easily manipulated by the very strategic communications strategies employed by both of these organizations. I applaud Chief David Todd, a police officer who is quoted in this piece as saying, “Even as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I have a red line.” Police officers are put in danger every day because of lax gun laws, particularly trafficking (not single straw purchases, which are bad enough, but routine and consistent large scale trafficking). I hope law enforcement agencies of all kinds come together to denounce American gun culture and those companies and organizations who have created it.
3
Once again, the NY Times advocates taking away rights without a trial.
There was clearly enough evidence for a domestic violence conviction, which even the NRA agrees is a good reason to strip the right to own a gun. There is no need, in this case, for a temporary restraining order, (which can be obtained without any physical evidence or representation of the subject).
We have to stop lying if we'lll ever make progress on responsible gun control.
4
John: I absolutely believe in cases like this in getting domestic violence convictions INCLUDING mandatory jail time -- and taking away guns and prohibiting future purchases of guns.
HOWEVER....you can't just take someone's rights away on hearsay or allegations. It would be awfully easy for a vindictive spouse to simply tell her husband "if you don't give me money or custody...I'll tell the judge you beat me, and you'll lose all your (very valuable) guns!"
We all know that in divorce cases, accusations of both child abuse AND alienation of affection fly around like crazy. Some are true, some are partly true but many are false -- made up so that the angry spouse can get a legal advantage over the other party.
5
You are saying that it is better for a woman to die than to take away an abusive male's firearm "without a trial?"
3
EarthCitizen - You are saying that it is preferable to take away any and all rights from a person "without a trial" as long as someone's life might be affected. How long are you willing to have that person's rights denied "without a trial" months, years, a lifetime?
1
When Are Abusers Are Most Lethal? When their targets are other men.
1
I guess beating, threatening, stalking and dragging someone around by their hair isn't enough to put somebody in jail. Enough already.
18