PA Bill Number: SB99
Title: In county boards of elections, further providing for expenses of county boards and of primaries and elections to be paid by county, expenses of ...
Description: In county boards of elections, further providing for expenses of county boards and of primaries and elections to be paid by county, expenses of ... ...
Last Action: Re-referred to APPROPRIATIONS
Last Action Date: May 8, 2024
Due Process for Accused Domestic Abusers With Guns? Nope. :: 02/08/2016
“More than a dozen states have strengthened laws over the past two years to keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers, a rare area of consensus in the nation’s highly polarized debate over guns.”
That’s the AP’s take on the spate of gun laws that mandate firearms confiscation for people (mostly but not exclusively men) subject to an ex parte domestic abuse-related retraining order. To be clear . . .
ex parte is a Latin legal term meaning “a decision decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present.” In other words, due process, the right to confront one’s accusers, guaranteed by Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, doesn’t apply.
As the AP article points out, the NRA hasn’t exactly taken a hard line against these new laws.
The National Rifle Association has taken a cautious approach toward such bills, opposing the farthest-reaching measures but staying neutral or negotiating compromises on others. For example, the NRA has fought provisions that would require people to surrender their guns before they have a chance to contest allegations made in a request for an emergency protective order.
“There is no evidence that simply taking away people’s guns without a fair hearing makes the victims any safer,” NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said . . .
In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker signed a law in 2014 requiring people subject to domestic abuse restraining orders to turn over their guns within 48 hours. The NRA stayed neutral after negotiating language that allows individuals to seek the return of their weapons once restraining orders are lifted.
To quote L. Neil Smith, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. As such, it is not subject to the democratic process nor arguments of social utility. We all know that confiscating a domestic abuser’s guns won’t stop them from acts of violence. But arguing that gun confiscation without due process doesn’t work doesn’t cut it. Gun confiscation without due process is unconstitutional. Period.
The NRA is the only gun rights group shying away from calling an unconstitutional spade an unconstitutional spade, presumably to avoid being seen as the “bad guy” protecting domestic abusers in a War on Women kinda way.
Kim Stolfer, president of the Pennsylvania group Firearms Owners Against Crime, said his organization isn’t on board with the idea yet. He said such legislation could be exploited by vindictive ex-spouses who level false allegations of abuse.
“We need some balance, and it’s rapidly going the wrong way,” he said.
It’s hard to maintain “balance” when you’re sliding down a slippery slope. To wit . . .
Federal law has long prohibited felons, those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse crimes and individuals subject to permanent protective orders from buying or owning guns. Critics say the federal law is too weak because it does not apply to dating relationships, does not ban guns during temporary protective orders and does not establish procedures for abusers to surrender firearms.
States have been passing their own laws to match or exceed the federal prohibitions, delighting gun control advocates.
“We’ve passed them in blue states, red states and purple states,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “We believe they are absolutely lifesaving.”
Some of the strictest state laws create processes for seizing firearms from abusers and extend gun bans to stalkers, abusive dating partners and those who are subject to temporary protective orders.
Studies by public health researchers have generally concluded that such laws, when properly implemented, can reduce deaths.
Citation? Generally, specifically, none. Meanwhile, led by the AP, the assault media has taken this “abusers should have their guns taken away” meme and run with it. Here’s a screen cap of today’s Google search for “gun” [links not active]:
No one argues against gun confiscation for convicted domestic abusers, stalkers or dating partners — although locking them up is a far more effective solution. The point here: “innocent until proven guilty” is a founding principle of our Constitutional democracy.
No gun rights organization worth its salt supports any law violating that principle, no matter how “useful” it might seem. The NRA and its allies should be lobbying for laws that make it easier for actual and potential victims of domestic abuse to defend themselves by force of arms. And opposing any further degradation of our civil rights.
Original Article:
States Taking Action to Keep Guns out of Abusers' Hands
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/states-taking-action-guns-abusers-hands-36756023
More than a dozen states have strengthened laws over the past two years to keep firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers, a rare area of consensus in the nation's highly polarized debate over guns.
Lawmakers and governors of both parties have supported bills stripping gun rights from those who have been convicted of domestic violence-related crimes or are subject to protective orders. The measures have been backed by victims' advocates, law enforcement groups and gun control supporters who see easy access to firearms as a major contributor to domestic violence killings.
Similar proposals are expected to be debated in several states this year.
"Domestic violence is definitely an area where there is the most agreement between the gun lobby and gun-violence prevention advocates," said Allison Anderman, staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.
The National Rifle Association has taken a cautious approach toward such bills, opposing the farthest-reaching measures but staying neutral or negotiating compromises on others. For example, the NRA has fought provisions that would require people to surrender their guns before they have a chance to contest allegations made in a request for an emergency protective order.
"There is no evidence that simply taking away people's guns without a fair hearing makes the victims any safer," NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said.
The push in the states is driven by stories of women and children killed or wounded by known abusers, and by statistics showing that hostile relationships often turn deadly when guns are present.
An average of 760 Americans were killed with guns annually by spouses, ex-spouses or dating partners between 2006 and 2014, according to an Associated Press analysis of FBI and Florida data. Florida's statistics are not included in the FBI's report, which covers all other states and District of Columbia, but were analyzed separately by AP.
The total is an undercount because not all law enforcement agencies report such information, and it doesn't include children and other bystanders who were killed. More than 80 percent of those killed were women.
"The system failed my son, and I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure it never happens to another child or another woman," said Hollie Ayers, 44, a Pennsylvania woman whose 2½-year-old son, Michael, was shot and killed in front of her by her abusive ex-husband in 2013. "Michael's life to me was priceless. If you can at least reduce the amount of homicides, this is a no-brainer to me."
Ayers, who was shot in the face and the leg, said she constantly thinks about her son, who loved tractors and puzzles. Her ex-husband killed himself after the rampage.
Ayers had warned that he had guns and had said that he, his ex-wife and the child "would be better off dead" before she obtained a permanent protection-from-abuse order, court records show. But the judge did not order her ex-husband to surrender his weapons, even after he violated the protective order.
Hollie Ayers is pushing for a Pennsylvania law that would require people to turn over their guns when judges issue protection orders against them.
Kim Stolfer, president of the Pennsylvania group Firearms Owners Against Crime, said his organization isn't on board with the idea yet. He said such legislation could be exploited by vindictive ex-spouses who level false allegations of abuse.
"We need some balance, and it's rapidly going the wrong way," he said.
In announcing executive action on gun control last month, President Barack Obama said protecting domestic abuse victims is one of his goals. His changes include strengthening the federal background check system, which has denied gun sales 120,000 times since 1998 because of domestic violence convictions.
Federal law has long prohibited felons, those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse crimes and individuals subject to permanent protective orders from buying or owning guns. Critics say the federal law is too weak because it does not apply to dating relationships, does not ban guns during temporary protective orders and does not establish procedures for abusers to surrender firearms.
States have been passing their own laws to match or exceed the federal prohibitions, delighting gun control advocates.
"We've passed them in blue states, red states and purple states," said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. "We believe they are absolutely lifesaving."
Some of the strictest state laws create processes for seizing firearms from abusers and extend gun bans to stalkers, abusive dating partners and those who are subject to temporary protective orders.
Studies by public health researchers have generally concluded that such laws, when properly implemented, can reduce deaths.
Gun rights advocates say some of the laws are applied too broadly.
"It encompasses everybody who has a one-time blip in their life, and all of a sudden their gun rights are taken away forever," said Wes Dunbar, an Iowa lawyer who has represented defendants upset over losing their ability to hunt.
South Carolina and Wisconsin are two of the states dominated by Republicans and with a strong tradition of gun ownership that have taken steps to restrict abusers' access to guns.
In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker signed a law in 2014 requiring people subject to domestic abuse restraining orders to turn over their guns within 48 hours. The NRA stayed neutral after negotiating language that allows individuals to seek the return of their weapons once restraining orders are lifted.
Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina signed a measure in June that includes a life ban on gun ownership for the most serious domestic violence offenders.
"South Carolina is no longer thinking about the convenience of the abuser," Haley said when she signed the bill in June. "South Carolina is thinking about strengthening the survivor."
