Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:47 AM Apr 2016

House Passes Gun Bill: Firearms Law Aimed At Abusers

HARTFORD — The House of Representatives passed a bill that seeks to sever the often deadly link between domestic violence and firearms. The law would require those subject to a temporary restraining order to give up their guns.

The 104 to 42 vote broke largely, although not exclusively, along party lines. It came after more than five hours of vigorous debate, capped by the emotional testimony of Rep. Robyn Porter of New Haven.

In a steady voice, Porter recounted her harrowing ordeal as an abuse survivor. Pregnant and scared, she struggled alone. "When you're going through domestic violence, you're living in silence, you're living in shame, you don't trust anybody," she told a rapt chamber.

Her abuser had a gun and Porter used to hide the bullets out of fear. "I felt like if he was going to use the gun, he would have to find the bullets," she said. "And I knew in my heart I didn't stand a chance against a loaded gun, so I made a plan of escape."

http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-gun-bills-0428-20160427-story.html
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
House Passes Gun Bill: Firearms Law Aimed At Abusers (Original Post) SecularMotion Apr 2016 OP
the Constitution State like the fifth amendment about as much as the second gejohnston Apr 2016 #1
Yeah, wait 'til the commit a real crime. Like murder. Then after the trial and conviction flamin lib Apr 2016 #2
What crimes are you not yet guilty of? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #3
male DVs don't often use guns, gejohnston Apr 2016 #5
Absolutely . . . NOT flamin lib Apr 2016 #6
Ahh, so nobody elses rights matter. beevul Apr 2016 #7
turn in your liberal card, gejohnston Apr 2016 #10
Sigh, everybody is a Constitutional Scholar. flamin lib Apr 2016 #12
not confiscation of property, gejohnston Apr 2016 #14
No sir. Guns everywhere all the time without concern for public or personal safery flamin lib Apr 2016 #15
No, I'm consistent about everything gejohnston Apr 2016 #16
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson flamin lib Apr 2016 #19
key word being "foolish" gejohnston Apr 2016 #24
At least you were obvious trying to falsely attribute... beevul Apr 2016 #28
What's wrong with taking property? scscholar Apr 2016 #26
sometimes it is destroyed, or stolen by cops gejohnston Apr 2016 #27
"Preventive detention" is what the Nixon administration advocated... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #8
I support the 4th Amendment and probable cause. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #9
It's called due process, as others have pointed out. theatre goon Apr 2016 #17
A tro is due process. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #18
Sure... theatre goon Apr 2016 #20
No. You are wrong and no amount of reason will convince you otherwise so I'm done with you. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #21
Funny stuff. theatre goon Apr 2016 #22
Wrong again SecularMotion Apr 2016 #11
not the same thing, gejohnston Apr 2016 #13
Still wrong again. flamin lib Apr 2016 #23
I did, still doesn't say anything about property, gejohnston Apr 2016 #25
Wonder if she realized she also had the right to own a firearm? ileus Apr 2016 #4

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
1. the Constitution State like the fifth amendment about as much as the second
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:57 AM
Apr 2016

the law is aimed at people who are accused of being abusers, and removing their right to due process and compensation for confiscated property.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
2. Yeah, wait 'til the commit a real crime. Like murder. Then after the trial and conviction
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:07 AM
Apr 2016

you can take their guns.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
5. male DVs don't often use guns,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:16 AM
Apr 2016

they tend to use more violent means. How far should we go with this? Random house searches?
I would agree with this if there were harsh penalties for making false claims.

In the other hand, there are some any interesting facts that are usually not considered when domestic violence is discussed. Women are seen as victims of domestic violence by large majority (between 85% and 95% of reports showing female victims) over men because men do not call the police; however, if we would consider all the men that do not file a report, for one or another reason, we would not only find out that women are responsible for 70% of domestic violence cases, as Linda Kelly, Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis. B.A. wrote on her book DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE, 1988; but also that a large percentage of the women's reports are either false allegations or that the woman was the initiator of aggression but also who called the police when the man responded to the aggressions. How many times have we heard or even seen of a woman vandalizing a man's car by scratching it with keys as a result of jealousy or after discovering adultery? Or threaten with committing suicide if the relationship was ended? Or throwing personal belongings out an apartment window or against a wall? Men do not file reports under these circumstances, but they happen every day and more often than not the perpetrator is a woman.

False accusations of domestic violence are, sadly enough, utilized as a tool to obtain legal advantages over a divorce/custody case. In many instances a divorcing parent, mostly women, will make a false accusation of domestic violence against the man to gain custody rights over their children and ruining the other parent's life in many ways. The alleged "aggressor" will be put in jail and have public records of domestic violence, potentially loosing custody of a child, losing a job, professional licenses, etc. In many cases Judges are reluctant to dismiss a restraining order risking that the accusation was rightful and thus leaving the accuser exposed to further abuse. Sometimes Judges not even allow the accusers to explain themselves and simply make a ruling by reading the "victim's" statement. Victims of "false accusations of domestic violence" have changed their life becoming miserably, in many cases, by losing their jobs, thus not being able to not only pay their bills, but also a court order child support, bringing them back to jail and into a cycle that is emotionally devastating to both the victim and his/her children.

http://www.examiner.com/article/a-modern-family-law-problem-false-accusations-of-domestic-violence

Without proper due process, and protection and stiff civil and criminal penalties for false accusations, nobody in their right mind can support this. Know any divorce lawyers? Take poll and ask them how many of them suggest to their female clients that an accusation would give them that advantage.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
6. Absolutely . . . NOT
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:00 AM
Apr 2016

Worst case scenario it takes two weeks to get a hearing get your precious gins back. Two fucking weeks.

Are you denying that a woman is killed with a gin by a domestic partner every 16 hours?

But of course gunz are more important even though Heller held that states can restrict gun rights.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
7. Ahh, so nobody elses rights matter.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:35 PM
Apr 2016

Everyone can just suck eggs where due process is concerned huh, because nobody elses rights matter.

I think you've made that abundantly clear, many times.

This is spot on:

Without proper due process, and protection and stiff civil and criminal penalties for false accusations, nobody in their right mind can support this. Know any divorce lawyers? Take poll and ask them how many of them suggest to their female clients that an accusation would give them that advantage.


But you don't give a fuck, because gunz.


gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
10. turn in your liberal card,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:31 PM
Apr 2016

because you don't believe in liberal principles and should be consistently applied. Would you apply the exclusionary rule differently if the contraband was gun vs a brick of pot? You have left liberalism and became part of the regressive left.

Worst case scenario it takes two weeks to get a hearing get your precious gins back. Two fucking weeks
And prove your innocence? That shit was discarded by Hammurabi

Are you denying that a woman is killed with a gin by a domestic partner every 16 hours?
I have no idea. I don't know who makes the claim or how they get that number. Assuming that is true, that is 574 per year. Compare that to the often cited four women murdered per day via DV.

But of course gunz are more important even though Heller held that states can restrict gun rights.
but they can not restrict due process. This is what it really is, due process. It is also about creating more prohibited persons while doing nothing, or giving a shit about, the larger issue they are using to this end.

Do you know what a liberal is? A conservative that has been falsely accused of a crime.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
12. Sigh, everybody is a Constitutional Scholar.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:58 PM
Apr 2016

A restraining order issued by a court IS due process.

And YOU don't get to judge me and my position on the political scale.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
14. not confiscation of property,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:02 PM
Apr 2016

a restraining order constricts movement slightly. This is confiscation of property. You have expressed illiberal views.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
15. No sir. Guns everywhere all the time without concern for public or personal safery
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:09 PM
Apr 2016

is a batshit crazy teabagger rightwing position. Ask Trump or Cruz.

At least when it comes to guns you are firmly in the Bundy corner of the universe. Same goes for your concept of the Constitution.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
16. No, I'm consistent about everything
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:26 PM
Apr 2016

or at least make be best effort possible to be.

s a batshit crazy teabagger rightwing position. Ask Trump or Cruz.
the Tea Party hates Trump, who is a buffoon anyway. Using disgusting terms to describe people who have ideas I disagree with is wrong, and I refuse to use such terms. I provide rational arguments based on facts, evidence, and reason to show the error of their ways, but I don't call them names. I have zero respect for anyone of any party who stoop to such tactics.

At least when it comes to guns you are firmly in the Bundy corner of the universe. Same goes for your concept of the Constitution.
Umm, no. Bundy thinks federal public land used to belong to the states, which it didn't. My concept of the Constitution is what it says. I'm closer to Alan Dershowitz.
It says what it says, not what you, me, or Bundy wished it said. I don't think the federal government has the right to ban pot, even though I think smoking it is as nasty and disgusting as smoking tobacco. I also oppose federal legislation to force states to accept CCWs of others, which is supported by the NRA, because I think it violates the tenth amendment.

What you call "batshit crazy right wing position" I call consistent and principled.

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
19. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:48 PM
Apr 2016

Being consistent isn't a bad thing in itself but ignoring or denying all that conflict with it is. You ignore decades of case law and court decisions to shore up a consistently wrong interpretation of Constitutional law.

I'm done with this sub thread as no amount of reason can sway you.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
24. key word being "foolish"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:48 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.cypress.com/blog/psoc-design-methods-and-madness-blog/hobgoblins-and-small-minds
Without consistency, rule of law and justice ends and decrees by the dogmatic and self serving begins. Perfect example is your own state, restrictions on abortion clinics that does not apply to medical procedures of equal risk.

You ignore decades of case law and court decisions to shore up a consistently wrong interpretation of Constitutional law.
For example? Why didn't the feds ban pot instead of taxing it, then refusing to print the tax stamps? Are you saying that New York and Wyoming can be forced to accept each other's CCWs? Please show me the case law.

I'm done with this sub thread as no amount of reason can sway you.
as soon as you start using reason, let me know.
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
28. At least you were obvious trying to falsely attribute...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:59 PM
Apr 2016
Guns everywhere all the time without concern for public or personal safery is a batshit crazy teabagger rightwing position. Ask Trump or Cruz.


At least you were obvious trying to falsely attribute to others, a position that essentially nobody actually holds.

This is what passes for anti-gun honesty folks.
 

scscholar

(2,902 posts)
26. What's wrong with taking property?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:38 PM
Apr 2016

It isn't like it is destroyed. It can always eventually be returned. Also, a judge ordered the taking. It's not like someone just made the decision to do it. No, someone we have put in a position of trust made a decision. Also, if you're against this then you're probably also against civil forfeiture.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
27. sometimes it is destroyed, or stolen by cops
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:47 PM
Apr 2016

to answer your question, just compensation. Another is that the decision is based on an accusation without evidence, in an area where misuse and false allegation are not unusual for leverage in divorce court.

I'm against the drug war period.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse

should all of the knives, tire chains, and hammers also be confiscated? How about bare hands? Guns are used in the minority of DV murders.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
8. "Preventive detention" is what the Nixon administration advocated...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:55 PM
Apr 2016

I..e., the state THINKS you may commit a crime, so detain and restrict a persons rights.

If you support the 5th Amendment, then I would support expedited due process wherein the "pre-criminal" has his/her day in court. Otherwise, his seems to be another fast, cheap & dirty end-run by very conservative forces.

 

theatre goon

(87 posts)
17. It's called due process, as others have pointed out.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:27 PM
Apr 2016

You seem to be like some other folks, that when it comes to your personal bigotries, due process can be ignored.

Y'know, like Donald Trump saying that we should restrict Muslims from coming into the country, even those that have not been convicted of any crime (they might, maybe, someday commit an act of terrorism, donchaknow). Or various Republicans saying that transgendered folks can't use the public restroom of their choice, because some of them, maybe, might have nefarious motives for using that restroom (even though they can't point out any examples of this actually being a problem).

This is exactly the sort of "logic" you are advocating -- it doesn't put you in very good company...

Bigotry is still bigotry, even when it's aimed at a group you don't happen to like.

So, yes, we wait until people commit a real crime before we punish them. That's actually how it's meant to work...

 

theatre goon

(87 posts)
20. Sure...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:56 PM
Apr 2016

...but for requiring someone to, for instance, stay away from another person -- not for the confiscation of personal property.

Again, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and in quite a bit more detail than I have done (no need to cover the same ground others already have). I guess certain facts don't fit into your personal set of biases.

I just really wanted to point out that your stance is supported by the same "logic" that other bigots are using in their stances. I do hope you're comfortable with that...

 

theatre goon

(87 posts)
22. Funny stuff.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:15 PM
Apr 2016

Reason will convince me of just about anything that's even remotely true. Your problem is that you never seem to use any. When facts are pointed out to you, you simply declare them to be wrong and that you won't play any more.

Most folks grow out of that particular little tactic around third grade. Not everyone, obviously -- it seems to be a favorite of yours.

Have yourself a lovely day.

 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
11. Wrong again
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:38 PM
Apr 2016
Temporary restraining orders do not violate due process

They don't violate due process, as there is notice served on the party and an opportunity for the person against whom one is ordered to appear before a court to have the order lifted or to challenge the issuance. Further, TROs are issued upon a showing of a prima facie reason under the law to issue such an order, either to maintain the status quo during an impending legal matter, or as a protective order to prevent someone from coming to potential harm.

Here in WA, this matter was addressed in State v. Karas, 108 Wn.2d 692, 700, 32 P.3d. 1016 (2001):

"Considering the minor curtailment of liberty imposed by the protection order and the significant public and governmental interest in reducing the potential for irreparable injury, the Act's provision of notice and a hearing before a neutral magistrate satisfies the inherently flexible demands of procedural due process."

Due process is always a question of (1) whether process is due, and (2) if so, what amount of process is due. Whether or not process is due here is obvious, since there is a curtailment of liberty. The amount of process due has been deemed sufficiently met by notice-and-hearing provisions.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-temporary-restraining-orders-allowed-since-they-violate-a-persons-freedom-of-movement-without-due-process#!n=12

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
13. not the same thing,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:00 PM
Apr 2016

he was talking about freedom of movement, not confiscation of property and an enumerated constitutional right. It is also property that police tend not to return even when ordered to by courts and are sometimes stolen by individual cops.
Also, what level of evidence does the judge have to use? Are these judges elected?

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
23. Still wrong again.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:17 PM
Apr 2016
or as a protective order to prevent someone from coming to potential harm.
====
Considering the minor curtailment of liberty imposed by the protection order and the significant public and governmental interest in reducing the potential for irreparable injury,


To meet these provisions the means for potential harm and irreparable injury must be removed. Read more closely please.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
25. I did, still doesn't say anything about property,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:50 PM
Apr 2016

but as a principle, there still should be stiff penalties for false accusations.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
4. Wonder if she realized she also had the right to own a firearm?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:59 AM
Apr 2016

There's no reason to be an easy victim here in America.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»House Passes Gun Bill: Fi...