Skip to comments.Gov. Scott Walker Signs Gun Confiscation Law Under Cloak of Domestic Abuse
Posted on 05/06/2014 4:00:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Wisconsins governor Scott Walker passed three new laws, addressing domestic violence. The laws include a mandate that police track the incidents where no arrests are made when dealing with a domestic-disturbance call.
The laws also make it very clear that there will be a process for seizing an abusers guns.
This section of the law was proposed by Republican Rep. Andre Jacque of De Pere, and also requires district attorneys to report to the Wisconsin Department of Justice each time a cop responds to a domestic abuse call and doesnt arrest anyone.
Republican Rep. Garey Bies proposed in the third law passed, that people subject to a domestic-abuse injunction must fill out a form to document, and then surrender their weapons. When the individuals injunction expires, they would have to request them back in writing.
This is one more big step toward trying to make sure that for every gun you take away, its that much better for (a victim, their) family and friends and loved ones who care about that person, Walker said.
These extreme measures are being put forth equipped with a sob story of a tragic incident involving a deadly case of domestic abuse. Are these measure going to help domestic violence? Probably not but it will help disarm the population.
The governor signed 55 other bills at the state capitol , one measure prohibits people from advertising their children for adoption online, while another legalizes the use of marijuana byproduct cannabidiol to treat childrens seizures.
Other bills of note allow University of Wisconsin System researchers to perform classified national security work in campus facilities, give county jailors more authority to strip search inmates, and legalize nonprofits rubber-duck race fundraisers. The state Justice Department has warned such races amount to illegal gambling.
If the now-dead-to- me- Walker were really concerned about the safety of abused women, he would have authorized a specialized fast track approval for women to own, conceal carry firearms..
Instead, he weakly and cowardly bowed to left and thus out of the presidential contenders for me....
I know I risk provoking your anger, but perhaps I need to be educated. I am a PASSIONATE gun owner and 2nd Amendment Supporter, however, if I am arrested for, or repeatedly investigated for threatening my Wife or Family, I feel that I actually SHOULD forfeit my 2nd Amendment Rights, at LEAST while the case is adjudicated through the normal channels. The article refers to what they infer is an isolated “tragic case” where a documented abuser apparently used his weapon. At least in my area, it’s not unusual at all. When I verbally defend my RIGHT to bear arms to others, I always predicate the argument with the statement that I am a “responsible, law abiding citizen”. Can we say the same about someone who is repeatedly the subject of 911 calls for domestic violence?
so much for due process.
he’s been dead to me since he was for amnesty. plus he hasn’t done crap to get rid of the partisan ‘govt accountability board’ here.
nothing like our own folks weakening gun rights.
So the constitution means nothing to you? Vis:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I don’t read it that way. I think you’re mixing up two different laws.
The first law says they will keep track of domestic abuse complaints even when no arrest is made.
A second law deals with the fact that possessing a firearm was ALREADY illegal for people who have Protective Orders against them, but that there was no legally defined process for confiscating / turning over any weapons. You now have to fill out a form. I’ve found other articles that say the process also involves an appearance before a judge, but this article doesn’t mention that.
I already linked to a Wiki article about Federal laws about this. Here are some Wisconsin laws that were already on the books in July of 2012....
Walker just committed political suicide as far as a run for the presidency is concerned. FUSW.
So if you call the police repeatedly on your neighbor, claiming that he stole your tools and the gas from your car, are we to confiscate his automobile until everything is cleared up to the government's satisfaction? So you don't know any women who would call the police on their husband or boyfriend so as to get him in trouble, put him in jail or settle an argument? Because I sure do, and I'll bet most of the people on this site can say the same thing. How far do you want to go with this? Do you want to lose your property, your means of self-defense or your liberty on the "say-so" of another person with due process? Because that's what you're asking for. No wonder people like Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio get elected there.
So you’re fine with all that?
I have a feeling Scott Walker is going to be 2016’s T-Paw.
No, he didn't.
Given the news source I’m going to wait before passing judgment.
These days, some will say Cruz. Some will say Gowdy. Just like some used to say Christie. Or Walker. Or Ryan.
Personally, I find it very difficult to be enthusiastic about any political candidate, TP or not.
really? Chicagolady really let me have it about Scott Walker - hmmm
Let’s not forget pillows and pantyhose.
Brady Bill - effective in all states. If someone gets a domestic violence or anti-stalking restraining order (or protection order) on them, cops can take their guns.
Jim Brady was Reagan’s press secretary. Took a bullet to the head, intended for President.
Kept his job and pay check even though disabled with head injuries, brain damage and abusive to his wife.
Wife Sarah went nuts for gun control.
Gabby Gifford us doing the same thing.
What did I tell you?
Do some research. Start with q blogger that doesn't know that Governors cannot pass laws". Research the author...hint, it isn't the person posted in the person originally posted.
The libs will love it if they can discredit proven conservatives this easily.
My problem is with the original laws that make it illegal to possess firearms just because of a protective order. That’s what I am not fine with. But I fought that battle back in the 1990s.
So now I have a problem with misleading articles. And this article, or at least the headline of this article, seems to me to be very misleading.
“Lets not forget pillows and pantyhose.”
It’s frightening. Every night when I go into the bedroom I wish I had a gun to protect myself.
The only thing one can say for sure about someone repeatedly the subject of 911 calls for domestic violence, is that one of two has accused the other of violence. Men and women are human and make stupid choices in marriage. Women are empowered (so are men against women) by being able to involve the force of government -- government is a FORCE -- to get whoever she's mad at in extra-deep trouble even if he hasn't done a thing. Men the same for women, for that matter.
Frankly, the government has very little place in dictating to the residents of such a household whether or not they have the right to have guns on the premises. How much is the Federal government mixed up in this, with requirements involving 911 response? I don't know; perhaps not at all. Regardless, only when a crime is committed with a gun by the member of the household should it even be discussed, IMO.
I am done voting "against" statists by voting for another statist. Voting "against" is spitting into the wind.
I want a candidate who has a DIRECTION, the general direction of Less Government Everywhere. That's what I'll vote FOR. I don't care what party he or she is in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.