Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA fighting to keep domestic abusers armed and dangerous (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The NRA does have a minor point (3+ / 0-)

    If being the subject of a protective order makes you unable to lawfully possess guns, what exactly are you supposed to do, load them up into your car and drive them to a police station?

    In order for such orders to be workable, there needs to be some sort of listed method for the owner of the guns to be able to surrender them without being in violation of the order for possessing them, as well as a clearly defined protocol for getting them back (in the event the abuse allegation turns out not to have been legitimate).

    The laws for this also needs to be able to pass an appropriate "taking" test in view of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Since the guns are not themselves illegal objects, nor evidence in or seizures as part of a crime, if the owner is deprived of them and does not get them back, there is the matter of due process and compensation.

    And as far as this being the NRA's doing and the NRA scuttling the legislation, wouldn't it be more appropriate to blame the actual legislators who voted on these things? The NRA is not nearly the all-powerful-arm-twisting bogeyman some people make it out to be...

    •  Heh. Ok, deny the efficacy of lobbying itself (11+ / 0-)

      in order to defend the NRA. That's a new one.  :)  

      And no, they don't have a minor point. They don't even get to the point in the discussion that you reach here. They don't have an answer to your question. They seek to derail it immediately with no solution. People are dying because of the NRA.

      We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

      by tytalus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:26:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was quoting the article (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon
        He cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, be forced to disclose whether he is in possession of firearms, because that would be tantamount to forcing him to admit a crime.
        Whether or not you like their point doesn't mean they do not have one, and just because you do not like them does not mean they cannot be correct once in a while. And as far as their point goes, do you think the 5th and 14th don't apply anymore, or they just don't apply in cases where you disagree?

        For lobbying, look up the numbers. The NRA's lobbying budget and campaign contributions are at the small end of the corporate scale, something like 1% or less of Wall Street efforts. The amount the NRA spends per candidate is chump change in DC terms.

        But, feel free to continue ignoring the meat of my comment and just go on with emotional ranting. Everyone else will notice that I did not at any point dispute or disagree with the notion that domesitc abusers should not have guns...

        •  In DC terms... (8+ / 0-)

          while the discussion is about efforts at the state level. Nice try.

          You know from reading the article and citations that the NRA does not want to have the conversation that you purport to begin here. So, I dismiss the notion that they have a point in need of a solution. That's why you can't point to a solution from the NRA. They desire no solution. The status quo is fine with them.

          Anyway, please insult me some more about my emotional ranting.

          We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

          by tytalus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:48:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            If you think I am trying to deflect things from the state level by using "DC" in my comment, I eagerly await the results of your research to show that my comparison of relative lobbying dollars and campaign contributions does not hold up at a state level. Oh wait, you didn't actually check that out to see if it was true, did you?

            hint: according to followthemoney.org, the total campaign contributions by the NRA (and its PAC's) at a state level averaged over the past ten years is about one-third of that of just Bank of America's contributions. The ratio also holds for just the 2012 election cycle. Then there is Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc., etc.

            And I never said that the NRA wanted a solution. I just pointed out that one of their criticisms might have some legal basis.

            But apparently the notion that the NRA might be partially correct on one part of something is just too much for you to handle, judging by your continued lack of response on it. The NRA said something, so you automatically oppose it, even if it is something I would have expected you to believe in, like civil liberties and equal rights under the law and due process and all those other terrible, terrible things where groups like the ACLU join forces with the NRA.

            So, it seems you have a knee-jerk opposition to something just because someone you don't like proposed it, even if it is something you yourself supported in the past. Sounds familiar, but I just can't seem to remember who or what it is you remind me of.

            So, to your unwillingness (or inability) to address the basic liberal issues I mentioned, I give the traditional tytalus response:

            Have a good day.
    •  YES (5+ / 0-)
      If being the subject of a protective order makes you unable to lawfully possess guns, what exactly are you supposed to do, load them up into your car and drive them to a police station?
      Or under current law, the person can take them to a gun show and sell them himself.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:03:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the state has an interest (8+ / 0-)

        in facilitating the surrender of guns without throwing additional charges at someone. But I suspect they actually would facilitate the surrender...in California, that's exactly what they do. Here's a piece of the NYT article that mentions it.

        Every morning, Detective John Kovach, who handles a range of domestic violence investigations, reviews a stack of protective orders filed the day before — generally 15 to 20 a day — looking for any mention of firearms.

        Usually, a handful of orders a day will contain some reference to guns, which Detective Kovach follows up on. He sometimes contacts the person protected by the order to find out more. He also checks various law enforcement databases, including one available in California that tracks handgun purchases.

        He goes out once or twice a week and serves the restraining orders himself. Usually, he says, he tries to collect firearms immediately, employing a well-honed sales pitch about helping the person comply with the law. If he believes beforehand that the person might not be cooperative, he will sometimes request a search warrant.

        But you know how it is, the NRA doesn't want anyone to know about that, or about the lack of funding for enforcement. They'd rather crow about laws not being enforced as an argument for gun proliferation, not increased budgets for the cops.

        We demanded a plan to reduce gun violence. Now it's time to demand a vote.

        by tytalus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:10:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  California (0+ / 0-)

          The restrained party is supposed to, within 24 hours, either sell the firearms to an FFL (no private sales or transfers) or surrender them to local law enforcement. For the latter, the owner is allowed to recover the weapons once the restraining order lapses (if it ever does),  though I have read that this isn't always that easy.

          I have a feeling a lot of people don't do this, though, so I'm glad at least some officers are taking the initiative.

    •  No, the NRA doesn't have a minor point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo

      under Federal legal ownership continues up until a hearing at which the accused has an opportunity to defend themselves.

      So and emergency protective order should be followed soon thereafter by a hearing at which the accused gets a change to rebut the accuser and defend their RKBA.

      Only after that point, and with a judge determining that the accused poses a threat does surrender of firearms come into play.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:43:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site