Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHouse Passes Gun Bill: Firearms Law Aimed At Abusers
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
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)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)you can take their guns.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)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.
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)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)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:
But you don't give a fuck, because gunz.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)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.
Do you know what a liberal is? A conservative that has been falsely accused of a crime.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)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)a restraining order constricts movement slightly. This is confiscation of property. You have expressed illiberal views.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)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)or at least make be best effort possible to be.
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)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)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.
beevul
(12,194 posts)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)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)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)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.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)theatre goon
(87 posts)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...
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)theatre goon
(87 posts)...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...
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)theatre goon
(87 posts)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)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)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)====
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)but as a principle, there still should be stiff penalties for false accusations.
ileus
(15,396 posts)There's no reason to be an easy victim here in America.