Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA lobbying keeps guns in the hands of domestic abusers (78 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  CPO's restrict all kinds of rights. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, LilithGardener, Eric Nelson

    They can restrict one partner's freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of travel, and freedom to raise children.  It's very common for such orders to prohibit the abuser from contacting (usually) his wife or partner and his children.  They also often forbid the party restrained from going near the residence of the protected party or parties.  They almost always mandate that the party restrained stay a certain distance from the protected party.

    The result of such an order can be that the person subect to the CPO has his speech restricted, has his freedom of movement restricted, and is cut off from the ability to participate in the upbringing of his children.  All of these things are rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but we quite regularly subordinate those rights to the right of the abused parties to be safe from violence.  As the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and that goes as much for private parties as for the nation.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:52:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So -- Maybe the answer is that Orders of (0+ / 0-)

      Protection should be harder to get.

      That would eliminate the problem.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 06:12:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Along with some abused women, I suppose... (0+ / 0-)

        have to agree to disagree with you on that, sorry.

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

        by tytalus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:45:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ::Blinks:: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        CPO's should be harder to get?  Do you know what you're saying?

        It's already tough enough for a woman to come to court and get a CPO to protect her (and often, her kids) against an abuser.  You want to make it even more difficult?  Are you trying to increase the toll taken by domestic violence?

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:45:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm responding to the exaggerated comments about (0+ / 0-)

          the loss of constitutional rights that orders of protection impose.

          People are trying to turn less-than-molehills into mountains in order to justify the confiscation of guns.
          If orders of protection really did interfere with the constitution in the ways that people claim, then we would have to make them harder to get.

          In reality, the restrictions in orders of protection are very specific to people and situations.  In truth, we have no generalized right to say anything to anybody in any place at any time.  We also have a my rights vs your rights situation, and orders of protection generally come into play where one person is not respecting the rights of another.

          The one real constitutional question I can see is a due process question for temporary restraining orders, but even that's a stretch given the temporary nature of the order and the fact that they do not make criminals out of anybody.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 04:03:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site