Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  You're saying I misrepresented... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, LilithGardener

    ...the Times article in my eight-paragraph piece (three paragraphs of which are from the Times itself because I do not mention the federal law until the seventh paragraph? As to your ludicrous claim that the NRA isn't a big part of the problem here, I suggest that YOU read the parts of the Times piece that your distorted comment leaves out. It is absolutely clear that the NRA is more interested in domestic abusers keeping their guns than it is in keeping those guns from being used against women who are supposedly protected by court order. Enforcement of the federal statute is up to the states, and the NRA does everything it can to make that enforcement ineffective. All emphasis added by me:

    The [federal] statute, though, is rarely enforced. In 2012, prosecutors nationwide filed fewer than 50 such cases, according to a Times analysis of records from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research center at Syracuse University that collects federal government data.

    It has, therefore, largely fallen to a state-by-state patchwork of laws to regulate this issue — or not.

    A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders. The strictest states, like California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, make it mandatory for essentially all domestic violence orders; others, like New York and North Carolina, set out certain circumstances when surrender is required. In a few other states, like Maryland and Wisconsin, surrender is mandatory only with a full injunction, granted after the opposing party has had the opportunity to participate in a court hearing. Several other states, like Connecticut and Florida, do not have surrender laws but do prohibit gun possession by certain people subject to protective orders. [...]

    Nevertheless, in 2010, they decided to lower their ambitions and backed a proposal in the Washington Legislature requiring surrender only after a full protective order was issued, restraining threatening conduct against family members or children of family members. The measure also would have made it a felony to possess a firearm while subject to such an order.

    Once again, the N.R.A. and its allies strenuously objected. The group sent out a legislative alert to its members, who besieged legislators. A veteran gun-rights lobbyist flew in from Florida to meet with Representative Roger Goodman, a Democrat who had introduced the measure.

    Mr. Judy, the state N.R.A. lobbyist, wrote in an e-mail to Mr. Goodman that his organization considered the current Washington law “already bad on this subject.” He added, “It is the N.R.A.’s position that any crime that is serious enough to cause an individual to lose a fundamental constitutional right should be classified as a felony.”

    In other words, the NRA intervened to argue those who had been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, which as we know are often what cases are pleaded down to, should be allowed to keep their guns.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:55:02 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site