The dark art of defending domestic abusers’ right to a gun

RI began debating SB 503 that would remove guns from domestic abusers and those under a restraining order in March this year. They're still at it. Seems like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not.

This article is about Frank Saccoccio, president of the Rhode Island Second Amendment Coalition and coincidentally a criminal prosecutor in district court.

Watching a lawyer walk the line between a job that requires him to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence and a job that requires him to protect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners should have been an interesting experience. No one supports the idea of domestic abusers having access to guns, so the intent of this law was generally thought to be a good thing by everyone. Further, prosecutors generally like laws that make prosecuting wrongdoers easier while at the same time protecting victims from further harm. Yet early on Saccoccio made comments that made it appear he had as much sympathy for those accused of domestic violence as he did for those who claimed to be victims, saying, for instance, “A lot of times you take a look at Family Court judges, they are very, very liberal. They like to err on the side of caution.”

This doesn’t seem like something someone interested in prosecuting domestic abusers might say. What lawyer complains when the judge is on their side?
-----------
It seems to me that Saccocio’s perspective on this issue is informed by his work as a lawyer who helps defend, not prosecute, those accused of domestic violence. On the website for his law firm, Comerford & Saccoccio, there is a section about the “increased penalties for crimes committed on family members, spouses or those who share the same household.” The website goes on to say that, “If you have been accused of domestic violence, you can be arrested on the spot. At Comerford & Saccoccio, we will work hard to get you out of jail and immediately begin building your defense.” (commentary: seems like a conflict of interest, no?)
--------------
Certainly everyone accused of a crime deserves a robust defense. And Saccoccio, as a defense attorney, provides an invaluable service representing those accused of domestic violence who, we should all remember, are innocent until proven guilty. That said, our society and our government has an obligation to protect victims of domestic violence, and not having access to your guns while the case is decided is a small price to pay for justice and safety.
-----------
The intent of Senate Bill 503 is to save lives. Since Saccoccio likes stories, here’s one he should know: The story of Evelyn Burgos, who lived in Johnston until August 2013. According to the Providence Journal, two weeks after she applied for a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, she was killed violently – much like she feared. And what actually took place was far worse. Armed with a .357 caliber revolver, her ex-boyfriend shot and killed Burgos and her 25-year-old daughter Vanessa Perez in the presence of her two sons, 2 and 8, and her 3-year-old granddaughter.”

http://www.rifuture.org/the-dark-art-of-defending-domestic-abusers-right-to-a-gun.html

The article can't be fully appreciated in four paragraphs but the mental gymnastics Saccoccio went through to demonize victims and maximize the possible abuse of a restraining order were interesting to say the least. Such is the level of discourse when we talk about removing guns from a domestic violence situation for the two weeks it takes to have a hearing on the restraining order.

Seems the pro-gun side considers having guns at all times, even when under a restraining order for domestic violence, more important than preventing the homicides that are being committed on the abused victim.

Support a gun violence group of your choice.