Skip to main content

While reasonable arguments can be made by both sides about the effectiveness of assault weapon bans and limits on the capacity of gun magazines or whether ownership registries will lead to gun confiscation, you would think that nobody would argue about the sensibleness of laws that mandate taking away firearms from people upon whom courts have imposed orders of protection. But the National Rifle Association does. In a lengthy feature article in Sunday's New York Times, Michael Luo reported:
In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.” [...]

[In Washington], where current law gives judges issuing civil protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms if, for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public health. But records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making the state a useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as the politics, of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment rights.

By analyzing a number of Washington databases, The New York Times identified scores of gun-related crimes committed by people subject to recently issued civil protection orders, including murder, attempted murder and kidnapping. In at least five instances over the last decade, women were shot to death less than a month after obtaining protection orders. In at least a half-dozen other killings, the victim was not the person being protected but someone else.

As Luo explains, the Times calculation, cross-checked against arrest and conviction records, suffered because data are often missing, protective orders have expired or been terminated and no longer can be found in court files. Digging through thousands of court records is tedious work that inevitably misses cases. Bottom line? This form of gun violence happens all the time even when the courts step in because the laws requiring surrender of firearms under orders of protection are not strong enough, subject to judicial laxity or are, in most states, non-existent. The Times found similar results in some of those no-surrender states as it discovered in Washington. In Minnesota, for instance, in the past three years, more than 30 people under protection orders were convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon.

Luo documents chilling personal stories. There was the woman whose petition for protection stated that husband had stuck a gun in her mouth and threatened to shoot but who did not lose his guns and came armed less than 12 hours later to threaten her again. Cops arrived, the guy gave up and she lived. And there was the woman in Oklahoma who, the day she filed for divorce, also filed a petition for a protection order because he had threatened her several times. She and her family begged the police to collect his small arsenal of guns. She went into hiding for a while. But when she emerged, her husband caught her in a parking lot, shot her several times and then killed himself.

In these cases and others, the NRA has made it risky for legislators to try to pass gun-surrender laws. Since 1994, a federal statute barring those covered by permanent protection orders from possessing firearms has been on the books, but enforcement is up to local authorities. Most of them just don't do it. The Times found fewer than 50 affirmative instances nationwide in 2012.

In Washington, Wisconsin, Virginia and elsewhere, the NRA has worked diligently to ensure that men who have threatened to shoot their spouses or girlfriends, even held them at gunpoint, get to keep their guns because, you know, Second Amendment. How the leaders of this gun-industry mouthpiece can look themselves in the mirror each day knowing that their lobbying efforts have contributed to murders that could have been prevented is a wonderment. And utterly maddening.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:48 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  family values meme still trumping self-defense (13+ / 0-)

    and the patriarchy holds the higher trembling hand

    Many women contemplating divorce file false allegations of domestic violence against their husband as a matter of tactical advantage in a divorce case. This is often done either without notice to the husband or ex parte with 24 hour notice. It is unfortunate that there are bad apples out there because it shifts the burden to the Courts to weed out which cases are false and which are meritorious enough to deserve protection under the law. Courts often take the side of caution in these cases specially where physical abuse and contact are involved. Court tend to protect women and children because they are the most vulnerable in our society. Unfortunately if the allegations are false, it often gives the domestic violence applicant a tactical advantage in a divorce proceeding against the husband in several respects.

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 Acedia is essentially a flight from the world that leads to not caring even that one does not care

    by annieli on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:54:32 AM PDT

    •  The right to a gun trumps the right to life. (14+ / 0-)

      That is what MB is getting at and that is what the NRA and its supporters also believe.  Their fondness for this lasts up until the point where they're the ones on the wrong end of the gun and unfortunately, at that point, it's too late to do anything.

    •  it is so terrible (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, FogCityJohn, lcbo

      that our courts should be asked to "weed out" who's lying and who isn't....

      •  Yeah, can you imagine? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, LilithGardener, lcbo

        Courts of law will now be forced to determine who's telling the truth and who isn't.  What will be next?  Will courts be asked to determine who's innocent and who's guilty?  Or who's liable and who isn't?

        It's an outrage, I tell you.  An outrage!

        /s

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

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:40:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I really wish they would actually show the stats (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      that those supposed "many woman" actually file false allegations.

      I've sadly known more than a few women who were threatened. I've never known a single woman who lied about it. Most women have a hard enough time trying to leave a bad situation. Most women are too busy trying to figure out how to file for divorce and deal with work and the stress of ending a relationship. Plus a number of those also have their children to deal with.

      I really would like the statistics to go with that false allegation claim. I know you aren't the one making it. Those that do need to back it up, otherwise it's nothing but hot harmful air.

      •  I know one women lied about it (0+ / 0-)

        She had a drug problem, and basically wanted the children and the child support and the house to keep it up. In the end the order was dropped and he got custody of the 2 kids and possession of the home.

        During this messy divorce the guy lived at an apartment in town. He was slapped with a temporary restraining order and wasn't supposed to possess firearms in the order, but they didn't ask if he did at the proceeding. He called me in a panic after leaving the court house because he had a couple of firearms at home. I stopped at his place of work and took his keys, stopped at his home and picked up his guns. I locked them up at my home and returned his keys to him when he got off work. They have since been returned, no permanent order was issued.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 09:54:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the courts were able to determine (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble

          there were other issues involved since he ended up with custody right?

          But one example isn't the same as saying "many women".

          I appreciate your response, it shows that the court system works as it was suppose to for him and the kids.

      •  I read the daily Appellate decisions in WA. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, blukat

        There are a huge number of cases going through the courts which involve penalizing persons, usually but not always men, for violating the terms of domestic protection orders in WA. Guns are not often in the mix, but when they are the top charge is not violation of a protection order but assault or worse, and the domestic order violation tags along.

  •  NRA (12+ / 0-)

    Not Rational Actors .

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:55:04 AM PDT

  •  That's crazy. Women most often get orders of (18+ / 0-)

    protection at the time they leave their abuser--and this is the time when a woman is most likely to be assaulted or killed by her perpetrator. It only makes sense to take guns away from an abuser in this situation--indeed, the states that do so have no doubt saved many women's lives.

  •  NRA wants women to arm themselves.... (12+ / 0-)

    and defend themselves.  This shootout in the OK corral attitude is shocking.

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

    by murrayewv on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:35:12 AM PDT

  •  Vile (11+ / 0-)

    So fucking vile.

    And so fucking predictable of the NRA.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:57:22 AM PDT

  •  Gun surrender laws reduced IP homocides 19%.. (19+ / 0-)

    in states where enacted.

    A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders.
    [snip]
    ..Although enforcement remains an issue, researchers say these laws have made a difference. One study, published in 2010 in the journal Injury Prevention, found a 19 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides.
    Yet the gun manufacturers "heat shield" - the NRA - never has any plausible argument against these laws. None. It's just 2nd amendment without any other rationale.

    It seems to me when there is a known, quantifiable public hazard there has to be room in law to accommodate a remedy to the hazard - ianal though fwiw  

    NYT link page 2 of 6

  •  Of course firearms should be collected in the near (11+ / 0-)

    term, but if a crime cannot be proven it simply isn't acceptable to deny anyone a right or privilege without a respecting their right to trial by jury.

    There should be no problem collecting weapons or restricting activities for six months.  

    Any permanent orders should require that the accused be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves.

    income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

    by JesseCW on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

    •  Defend themselves in court. Not defend themselves (6+ / 0-)

      in a gunfight.  I know you didn't mean that, but other readers may not be so discerning.

      •  Sorry. Thought that one was pretty clear :) (5+ / 0-)

        A friend of mine surrendered his guns in response to a TRO as soon as he was served.  

        When they went to court, the Judge issued a one year restraining order against both parties.  The Judge ordered his firearms returned if he didn't violate the order in any way for three months, because there simply was no claim of violence or threats of violence.  His Ex repeatedly said she was afraid of him, but when asked point blank if she was afraid he would hurt her physically she told the judge "no".  

        Sadly, this really all boiled down to two people highly active in the same club who refused to behave like adults after a very painful breakup involving a lot of infidelity.  Both of them acted like dysfunctional 12 year olds and continued to "flaunt" new partners at events, took turns sitting right next to each other making out with someone else, ect ect.  

        In the short term, it's better to be safe than sorry.  The burden for getting a TRO should be very, very light and the privilege of owning a firearm and even the freedom of movement should be restricted.

        Unfortunately, people really do sometimes try to use the courts for petty grievances, and many judges feel that denying any petition is a risk they don't want to take.

        income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

        by JesseCW on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:32:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That sounds like the courts working - to (8+ / 0-)

          prevent violence, to provide a cooling off period, and for restoration of his RKBA if there was no threat of using them on her.

          "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 02:44:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely. It was a good, fair judge. (6+ / 0-)

            If it was going to be over a year, though, a person should have the chance to request a jury trial.

            Not everyone gets a fair judge.

            income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

            by JesseCW on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:52:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think I read about a similar deal recently. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, JesseCW

              It may have even been with the jerk in Colorado Springs who threatened to murder a Colorado state legislator from Aurora, whose district includes the movie theater and whose son had been killed with a gun some time previously.  I think he had to surrender his guns for a year, with the same stipulation.

              I do allow that I might be confusing this with another situation.  

              I am not a gun owner and I firmly believe in the well-regulated portion of the 2nd Amendment so I see no problem with restricting ownership for a period of time for a cooling off.

              •  I am a gun owner and I firmly believe (6+ / 0-)

                in the well-regulated portion of the 2nd Amendment.

                People who threaten to murder folks should be found guilty of a felony and lose their right to own firearms.

                I neglected to mention that the friend in question turned in a dozen black-powder weapons that the Sheriff  didn't really want.  He just wanted to make sure his bases were covered, but they kept telling him "antique weapons don't count"....although it said nothing of the kind on the TRO they served him.

                Me, I just kind of feel a person under a TRO shouldn't have a cap and ball revolver either.

                income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                by JesseCW on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:17:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Sure (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, JesseCW, blukat, 417els

      Ideally, you'd have firearms are impounded for a period of time, and the right to purchase new ones suspended.  Possession while your guns are impounded seems like it would necessarily be a serious crime, as would attempting to purchase.  

    •  And why don't we put an electronic monitor on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy

      someone under a P. O.?  Why can't she get a text message if he comes within 200 yards, or something like that.

      "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 02:42:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There should be a robust govt database (4+ / 0-)

    That amasses this sort of information, plus pretty much anything else that might come before the police or courts.  It can be independent of attempts to check gun violence, since I am sure it has uses beyond that.

    •  The NRA aggressively lobbies against any effort (15+ / 0-)

      to gather information about gun ownership, gun violence or anything else that could potentially be used to formulate policy.  That's why they can claim all these efforts at regulation won't work - they've suppressed any/all studies that might help prove things one way or the other.  And why would they do this if perhaps they might find out information that would promote gun ownership?  Because they believe (along with me) it's the ready availability of guns that drives up gun violence and so they believe the far more likely outcome of a study would be to prove regulation saves lives.

      The US government should be studying this, but they've passed laws explicitly preventing collecting data at the behest of the NRA and gun merchants of death.

      •  I'm not even talking about gun data (0+ / 0-)

        I'm talking about one giant database that has your history of being arrested, convicted, subject to a court order, or any other involvement with the court system.

        The article said there were limits to the data they analyzed.  I'm suggesting the government collect more data on everyone for the sake of amassing data.  Ideally, this would mean giving everyone a government-issued unique ID number that can be used in more places than a SSN.

  •  saw this last night (8+ / 0-)

    and thought about posting, but then assumed you'd cover it, and do it better.

    if there is such a thing as evil, it wears an nra sticker.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:05:47 PM PDT

  •  They're deathmongers, nothing more. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, tofumagoo, unionblue

    Ask me if I'm afraid. I say, "Of course not. I'm a fool, and fools never die."

    by Troubadour on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:07:26 PM PDT

  •  Sorry about that MB... (4+ / 0-)

    I checked, but I didn't see this when it popped up or I wouldn't have written about it too. Well, at least this way it makes the front page!

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

    by tytalus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:13:00 PM PDT

  •  Gun control is a core civil rights issue (10+ / 0-)

    for women.  There is surely no comparison between numbers of women killed and injured with guns by men vs. numbers of men killed and injured with guns by women.

    The most recent study I can find that explores this dynamic is one from 1992, prior to the NRA's success in shutting down NIH gun violence studies.  Not a lawyer, but I believe the NRA's effort to shut down studies has specifically to do with the fact that women are a protected class under our anti-discrimination laws, and that there is clear discrimination in gun victimhood when one gender assaults the other gender.

    I wish an organization with means could compile this number nationwide for 2013, or retroactively if possible.  The number, I'm sure would be as consistent as it is shocking, and an important incitement to action.

    "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

    by Mogolori on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:19:06 PM PDT

  •  I can't believe that any state would NOT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, LilithGardener, Miggles

    collect up the guns of someone who is under a restraining order.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:20:07 PM PDT

  •  A Third Way? (0+ / 0-)

    I cannot see a proven abuser having his/her guns.  However, what if false statements are made to get that court order, and then the guns are permanently confiscated?  Are any law enforcement agencies allowed to temporarily hold on to those guns until more evidence is presented?

    There is no hell on earth appropriate enough for those who would promote the killing of another person, in the name of a god.

    by HarryParatestis on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:22:14 PM PDT

  •  Prohibited Persons - Know the law (8+ / 0-)

    Federal Law re Protective Orders

    8. Person Subject to a Restraining Order: This prohibited person category includes any person who is currently subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, child of the person, or child of the intimate partner OR engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or child. The court order must meet the specific requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be prohibiting.
    Federal Firearms Licensee Quick Reference and Best Practices Guide
    (A few excerpts)

    http://www.atf.gov/...

    Prohibited Transfers

    You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from possessing or receiving a  firearm. Do not sell or otherwise transfer a firearm and do not contact NICS if you have reason to believe that a person seeking to obtain a firearm is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.

    Note: If a person answers “No” to Item 11.a or 12 of Form 4473, or answers “Yes” to one or more questions in Items 11.b through 11.l of Form 4473, that person has given you reason to believe he or she is prohibited and the transaction must be stopped.

    You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any of the following prohibited persons or in the following circumstances:

    1. Straw Purchaser: A “straw purchaser” is a person who is not the “actual buyer” of the firearm; that is, a person who obtains a firearm for another person. Straw purchases are a primary source of firearms used in crime. If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale—such as one person picking out the firearm, handling the firearm, and providing the payment for the firearm while another person completes the Form 4473—you should not sell the firearm. Similarly, if one person attempts to purchase a firearm, NICS denies or delays the attempted purchase, and another person with him or her attempts to buy the same firearm, you must not complete this sale.

    2.  Person Under Indictment: A person “under indictment” includes any person who has been charged by indictment or information in any court with a crime for which he or she may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year.

    3.  Person Convicted of a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding 1 Year: This prohibited person category includes any person who has been convicted of a felony or other crime for which the person could have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year—EVEN if the court actually placed the person on probation or sentenced the person to a term of imprisonment for 1 year or less.

    4.  Fugitive from Justice: A fugitive from justice is a person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime (felony or misdemeanor) or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.

    5.  Unlawful Drug User or Drug Addict: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully uses—or is addicted to—marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotic drugs, or other controlled substances. Alcohol is NOT considered a controlled substance.

    6.  Adjudicated Mental Defective or Person Involuntarily Committed to a Mental Institution: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been adjudicated by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a danger to himself or herself or to others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or to manage his/or her own affairs. This category also includes any person who has been subject to a finding of insanity in a criminal case, including a finding that he or she is incompetent to stand trial. Also included is any person who has EVER been formally committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This category does NOT include a person committed to a mental institution solely for observation or a person who was voluntarily admitted to a mental institution.

    7.  Person Dishonorably Discharged from the Military: A person is considered dishonorably discharged only if he or she was separated from the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a dishonorable discharge or a dismissal adjudged by a general court-martial. This prohibition does NOT include persons with a bad conduct discharge or any other less than honorable discharge.

    8. Person Subject to a Restraining Order: This prohibited person category includes any person who is currently subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, child of the person, or child of the intimate partner OR engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or child. The court order must meet the specific requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be prohibiting.

    9. Person Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence regardless of the title of the offense. The offense must meet the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Note: Unlike other prohibited person categories, law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use are NOT exempt from this prohibited person category.

    10. Person who has Renounced U.S. Citizenship: A person has renounced his or her United States citizenship if he or she takes formal steps to renounce her/his citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or before an officer designated by the Attorney General during a time of war.

    11. Aliens Illegally or Unlawfully in the United States: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully entered the United States or who illegally remains in the United States after his or her authorized period of stay has expired.

    11a. Nonimmigrant Aliens: A nonimmigrant alien is an alien who is lawfully in the United States on a temporary basis for purposes of travel, business, study, etc. The term does NOT include a permanent resident alien (someone who possesses a “green card.”) A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase or receive a firearm if he or she: (a) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or presents a valid hunting license or permit issued by a State; (b) qualifies as a foreign diplomat, official, or law enforcement officer as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2); or (c) has received a waiver of the prohibition from the Attorney General.

    12. Sale of a Firearm or Ammunition to a Person Under Age 18: You may not sell or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 18 years old.

    13. Sale of a Handgun or Handgun Ammunition to a Person Under Age 21: You may not sell or deliver a firearm other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition other than rifle or shotgun ammunition—to a person who you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 21 years old. A firearm frame or receiver is not a rifle or shotgun and may not be sold to a person under 21 years old.

    14. Sale in Violation of State Law or Published Ordinance: You may not sell or deliver a firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession would be in violation of a State law or published ordinance.

    We recommend that you refer to the most recent edition of ATF’s State Laws and Published Ordinances–Firearms.
    Age Restrictions

    As noted above, under Federal law, the minimum age to purchase firearms and ammunition from an FFL is 18. If the firearm is other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition for other than a rifle or a shotgun—the minimum age is 21 [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]. However:

    1. You may sell ammunition that is interchangeable between rifles and handguns to a buyer who is at least 18 years of age if you are satisfied that he or she will use the ammunition in a rifle.

    2. Regardless of less restrictive State and local age requirements for firearms and ammunition purchases, you must adhere to the above Federal mininum age
    provisions.

    Background Check 101 - What is a Straw Buyer?
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "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 02:25:17 PM PDT

  •  Its Not An "Honor Killing" when Goober Kills Tracy (0+ / 0-)

    ...in the parking lot of the Piggly-Wiggly, 'cause they ain't mooslims.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:36:51 PM PDT

    •  For the record, "honor killings" occur... (6+ / 0-)

      ...in those countries where these were part of customary law before either Islam or Christianity appeared. They have nothing to do with Islam even though, as in cultures where other religions are dominant, some people who are ignorant of Islamic teachings on the subject or unwilling to be bound by Islamic law in such matters do commit honor killings.

      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 03:51:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not just marriages and domestic partnerships (4+ / 0-)

    I think it's important to note that violence in a relationship is not limited to those who had been living together and then separate. A former student of my husband's had been dating a guy, found out he was married, and broke up with him. He invaded her home, and killed her and her mother. The father was out of town, but a younger sister and brother were home at the time. I don't definitely remember if a protection order had been issued, but I think one was in effect.

  •  As gun owner I have made the decision not to vote (5+ / 0-)

    for any candidate in the next or any future elections that are supported by the NRA .  I just think the NRA is to extreme.

  •  As a father with daughters, I have a definite (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hangpilot

    sympathy here, but not sure that I'm impressed by the Times argument, especially given its lack of numbers that I can interpret in a useful way. The incidents cited are certainly tragic, but amount to an anecdotal parade of horribles, as the author backhandedly admits (weakly):

    In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order would have prevented the deaths.
    I don't know about the rest of the country, but it's not very hard to get orders of protection around here (Illinois), especially temporary orders pending a hearing.

    That's a good thing.

    We don't want it to be hard to make abusers stay away, even though it means we err on the side of the accuser and will sometimes infringe lightly on the civil rights of a wrongfully accused individual.

    It shouldn't be that easy, however, to take away somebody's constitutionally guaranteed rights.  That means either that you make it harder to get that order in the first place (a bad thing) or require some kind of enhanced process, preferably in addition to, but not in place of, the regular order if you want firearms to be confiscated.

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

    by dinotrac on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 02:54:32 PM PDT

    •  This made me curious (7+ / 0-)

      not a bad thing.

      We don't want it to be hard to make abusers stay away, even though it means we err on the side of the accuser and will sometimes infringe lightly on the civil rights of a wrongfully accused individual.
      So, what are we restricting when we do this? It could be the freedom of movement or travel, a freedom so fundamental it's not even spelled out explicitly but seems to be a matter of Constitutional interpretation.

      And yet this fundamental freedom doesn't seem to be so hard to take away, supposedly. Which makes me wonder, what is it about guns that makes them extra-special by comparison.

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

      by tytalus on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 03:20:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  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 ]

  •  Buried lede (0+ / 0-)

    The diary misrepresents the Times article by strongly implying that orders of protection simply do not come with requirements for surrender of weapons. It does this, e.g. in the first paragraph by omitting the qualifier "temporary" from this statement, "...you would think that nobody would argue about the sensibleness of laws that mandate taking away firearms from people upon whom courts have imposed orders of protection." The law does mandate this, but does not extend that mandate to temporary orders. Only towards the end of the diary are the provisions of the 1994 bill acknowledged.

    Now, you can argue that temporary orders ought to be treated likewise, but there is at least a rational argument included in the Times article (and unmentioned in the diary), that "the statute excluded most people under temporary orders, on the ground that they had not yet had the opportunity to contest the accusations in court."

    To the best of my knowledge, the NRA is not responsible for police and court failure to enforce the laws on the books. Instead, MB offers a partial, rhetorically misleading account of the actual situation.

    •  What 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) requires (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      417els, Meteor Blades, Eric Nelson
      (g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

      (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) who is a fugitive from justice;

      (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

      (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

      (5) who, being an alien - (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

      (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

      (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

      (8) who is subject to a court order that –

      (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

      (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

      (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

      (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

      (h) It shall be unlawful for any individual, who to that individual's knowledge and while being employed for any person described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section, in the course of such employment - (1) to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or (2) to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

      "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 04:42:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  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 ]

  •  My cousin was murdered on New Years Eve 1987, (8+ / 0-)

    San Francisco, by her husband, whom she was leaving and whom she had a restraining order against. In 1986, it was possible to buy a gun (no waiting period) even if you were the subject of a restraining order, which you cannot do in California now. But it is obviously still possible in many other states.  He bought a gun, dragged her into his car, took her to Golden Gate Park shot her and then killed himself. He also orphaned their three daughters, 17, 14 an 7 years old, who were raised by their aunts and uncles. They are wonderful and lovely young women now but were angry and very messed up for years. Because gun violence has ripped our family so horribly, I have very little patience for a lot of the gun rights arguments. I'm sure my cousin's story has been repeated many times around our nation and I would hope that we can reach a point where it is impossible to buy a gun if you have a restraining order taken out against you. Maybe if her husband had been denied the gun or had a three day waiting period, she would be alive today. No one should ever have to get that phone call...

    "Seed corn. It's what's for dinner!" Republican philosophy of governance

    by madame damnable on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 04:39:11 PM PDT

  •  I wonder if this could be solved ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... by a tweak to the laws, since the NRA (whose core constituency is exactly the sort of guys who would have these filed against them) will, as the article demonstrated, fight tooth and nail against the rational step of making the subject of the order surrender his (and let's not forget sometimes it could be her) firearms.

    What if they had a choice? You can keep the guns if you want ... but if you choose to do so, if there is a report of the order being violated, you will be presumed armed and dangerous and any LEO responding to a report of this order being violated is authorized to use deadly force to enforce it and protect the person who got the order. I'm sure Mr. Holten might have thought twice about lying in wait for his estranged wife if he knew he had a good chance of taking one center of body mass as soon as the cops got a good bead.

    (And what, I wonder, would the NRA think about establishing a network of volunteers to provide armed protection for anyone who gets one of these orders? It would be the least they could do).

  •  You have data? (0+ / 0-)

    " the NRA (whose core constituency is exactly the sort of guys who would have these filed against them)"

    You know this precisely how?

    •  Alright ... (0+ / 0-)

      it's a stereotype. But from personal observation, if I were looking to find people willing to support a really reactionary conservative Republican candidate (which would include one who the NRA would have no trouble supporting), I think I could do a lot worse than look through the local court records and call the men who got served with divorce papers in the last year or so (especially the ones who got dunned for child support).

      And do remember to make this a reply ... I wouldn't have known you responded if I hadn't come over here to look.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site