So why can't we just say, force the gun owner with protective orders against them to give up their guns for 6 months, a year, two years tops depending on their history? Do we really choose the strictest possible interpretation of the second amendment over "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for people who are quite possibly the survivors of violent, toxic relationships?
Why is this a radically anti-gun idea? It sounds like common sense - take guns away from people who have a history of violence while they are in an emotionally distraught part of their lives. Given how frequently the shooters in these stories seem to proceed to kill themselves, it seems like it's for their own safety just as much as for the victims'.“Once a person has an injunction issued against him, he is already a prohibited person. He cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, be forced to disclose whether he is in possession of firearms, because that would be tantamount to forcing him to admit a crime.”
What? I really don't understand this one, and it sounds incredibly defensive on the part of the gun-rights advocate speaking. Why is being forced to disclose your firearm possession tantamount to admitting to a crime (unless even the advocates are suggesting that gun ownership has a negative, criminal connotation)?
I too would like to know exactly what objections the NRA could possibly have to this.It was in recognition of these converging realities that Congress included a provision in the 1994 crime bill, over the objections of the N.R.A., that barred most people subject to full protective orders filed by intimate partners from purchasing or possessing firearms.
A protective order is the not the same as a crime. The court order is there because someone could commit the crime, so he is ordered to stay away so that he doesn't. There is by and large a low burden of proof to obtain a restraining order because the inconvenience to the restrained person is so low as compared to the increased safety of the victim. HOWEVER, the right to possess a firearm is a very important right; the removal of which ought to require the actual commitment of a crime as opposed to someone accusing the possibility of a crime being committed. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court holds freedom of speech in the same echelon as the right to bear arms since McDonald v. Chicago. In addition, the vast majority of firearms are unregistered in the United States, making the police seizing a gun owner's property an impossibility in most cases. Like it or not, as long as gun ownership remains a fundamental right in the USA, the best thing for someone filing a restraining order against a gun owner is to buy a gun herself.
On top of this, Senate and House appropriations committees are attempting to permanently loosen some gun rights provisions with some classic fancy legislative footwork in the next financing bill. Although I'm admittedly not crazy about guns in general, I've come to accept the stats I've seen that suggest a widespread curtailment of certain kinds of guns or gun accessories within the U.S. would not have a great impact on rates of gun violence. Lots of people here have lots of guns, and that doesn't necessarily make them dangerous or "bad guys" to borrow a term from the NRA. These articles, however, push the gun-rights debate into the theater of the absurd. Why are groups actively fighting against more careful inventorying of retail gun stockpiles? How could that possibly limit a person's right to bear arms? And why shouldn't individuals who have injunctions against them and demonstrate a certain amount of danger to those around them have limited access to guns? Aren't these no-brainers that don't limit the law-abiding public's right to bear? Wouldn't these measures help reduce gun violence at minimal cost to constitutional right? What the hell?
Fascinating. States heavily mentioned are: Washington State - Fully under donk control
Oklahoma - All elephant, no peanuts So that begs the question - how is this cutting across party lines? -XC PS - Have to call them on sloppy stats in one place - "Intimate partner homicides account for nearly half the women killed every year, according to federal statistics. More than half of these women are killed with a firearm." It drives me nuts when they say "killed" instead of "murdered." There are over 35K road deaths in the US every year, half are women. I found some numbers from the CDC that showed that there were about 1200 females in this category in 2005, and it was dropping. Did they mention that in the article and I missed it?
It's not a slip because it happens all the time, it's about advancing the agenda. There was an awesome thread on Volkha today bout how the first amendment couldn't possibly have meant to cover rapid fire free speech instruments like TV, Radio, offset printing, the internet, etc, etc. Brill. -XC