Hillary Clinton Joins Americans For Gun Safety Foundation Campaign - 2ND AMENDMENT

NBC4 ^ | 3/11/04

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Victims of domestic violence often don't get adequate protection from the criminal justice system when their abuser has a gun, advocates said Wednesday.

A gun control group and a domestic violence center claim many women are slipping through the cracks because judges and police officers don't pay enough attention to the risks a gun poses in a volatile domestic violence case.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said Wednesday that the failure of officials to follow through on gun restrictions show "how difficult it is to get real protection out of a protective order."

Clinton joined the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation and the National Network Against Domestic Violence, which are trying to pressure local, state, and federal authorities to strictly enforce the gun restrictions on protective orders.

While there are no statistics to show how often non-enforcement of a gun restriction has resulted in a woman's death, other figures show a link between the two issues, according to the advocacy groups' review of federal crime statistics.

More than 600 women are murdered and thousands more menaced by abusers with guns, and nearly a third of all women killed in the United States in 2000 were killed by their current or former lovers. Guns were used in most of those homicides.

California had 236 such deaths between 1999 and 2001, the most of any state, said Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety. But California is one of the few states to take steps to require protective orders are enforced, he said, becoming "a national model."

The California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and other advocates are beginning a yearlong "Safety and the Law" campaign to include brochures, materials provided to domestic violence advocates, lawyers, and law enforcement, and public service announcements on Lifetime Television featuring television stars Kelli Williams, Camryn Manheim and Lisa Gay Hamilton.

Clinton spoke at a press conference after Lavon Morris-Grant, a mother of three, described being shot in the head, thigh, and foot by her estranged husband, who then killed himself.

Morris-Grant, of Newburgh, N.Y., said it was important for officials to do more "to help other women avoid what happened to me."

Federal and some state law prohibits men with protective orders against them from possessing or transporting a gun, but those restrictions are often not closely followed, law enforcement officials say.

Sgt. Scott Gibson of the Alexandria, Va., police department said full enforcement of gun restrictions on protective orders is "the vast exception" around the country, and the entire process can be hamstrung by a hitch in paperwork.

"A lot of times domestic violence cases with guns aren't handled as strictly or as thoroughly as they should be," said Gibson, who handles domestic violence cases for his department.

"Guns in that type of volatile situation raise the lethality for everyone involved, including the police officers."

According to some estimates, more than 1 million protective orders are filed every year in the United States.

"There are so many opportunities for them to pile up on someone's desk -- a check on a small box will keep it from showing up in the right place, and then no one ever knows about it because it never makes it into any computer database," Gibson said.

[DBrow]

California has more than one third of the "abuser with a gun" murders, and they are a national model of gun restriction compliance? Right.

How often does a woman shoot her abusing husband? Anybody know?

This would have been good to include in the article, along with the times that a judge lets the murdering wife walk because it was justifiable homicide (and in many cases it was, IMO- it may be the only way out in some cases).

Looks like Hillary is going to be pushing for stricter enforcement of the Lautenberg Amendment. If they can eliminate 1 million gun owners per year, in a few hundred years there won't be any.

[dixierat]

"Victims of domestic violence often don't get adequate protection from the criminal justice system when their abuser has a gun, advocates said Wednesday."

Especially when the victim is unarmed!!!

If I could make just ONE law, I would allow ANYONE over the age of 18 and menatlly stable to carry a 2 shot handgun anywhere. THAT would do a lot towards reducing crime and violence against women.

[DBrow]

Wow! I'll vote for you (and buy stock in North American Arms!)

[bobo1]

Hitlery has threatened me with her nasty words. Despite the 1st Admendment, I think that her mouth ought to be duct taped shut until this is settled in a court of law.

Who cares about the 1st Admendment. I feel threatened. You need to change the Constitution for me until the exception of the rule becomes the rule.

Blessings, Bobo

[NRA2BFree]

I didn't think it was possible to detest that woman any more than I already do, but I was wrong. Words fail me now.

[nobody_knows]

And not a peep about how many women use a firearm to protect themselves every year? Sad...

Kimber.... Number 1 in feminine protection.

[nobody_knows]

And not a peep about how many women use a firearm to protect themselves every year? Sad...

Kimber.... Number 1 in feminine protection.

[KEVLAR]

Not to detract from the issue in the article, but I suspect orders of protection are misused in many divorces which may explain in part the lack of enforcement.

[Squantos]

Maybe if I say I want to ride in the front of the Bus with a gun........then I could get my rights back.

[Dixie Pirate]

"carry a 2 shot handgun anywhere"

Why only 2 shots? Doesn't that INFRINGE upon our 2nd?

[Dixie Pirate]

"Hitlery has threatened me with her nasty words"

Reminder: The 1st Amendment was put in place to allow citizens to speak out against the government without retribution. That doesn't mean anybody can run their yap about whatever they want, regardless of damages. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Your right to swing your fist ends when it touches my nose".

[bobo1]

And the second admendment was meant for all the citizens of the United States without all the limitations being imposed by the statists in government. I was using satire, applying the same principles used against the 1st Admendment as it is used against the 2d.

"Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Your right to swing your fist ends when it touches my nose"."

And bobo didn't hit anyone in the nose, so what precisely is your point?

Blessings, Bobo

[dixierat]

ALL gun laws infringe on the 2nd, IMHO. In that light the only state truly in step with the US Constitution is Vermont.

IF we can't have TRUE and COMPLETE freedom, then a 2 shot handgun would be ideal. TOO small to be very effective as an offensive weapon (unless the victim is unarmed) but big enough to be a good deterent.

BUT, I still want us ALL to have the right to carry anything, anywhere.

[paul51]

... I suspect orders of protection are misused in many divorces which may explain in part the lack of enforcement

Bingo

[OXENinFLA]

[Dixie Pirate]

"so what precisely is your point?"

Settle down, there, Bobo! That was not an attack on you. I posted that as a reminder to all. I did take your post in the correct context.

Steve

[bobo1]

I hit the left button on my mouse and saved that. LOL!

Blessings, bobo.

[bobo1]

I am apparently not very bright. I understand the 1st
Admendment pretty well, even the Establishment of religion clause.

You responded this way:

"Reminder: The 1st Amendment was put in place to allow citizens to speak out against the government without retribution.

Bobo: I was comparing the way Lib's distort the 2d Admendment in contradiction with the 1st. The second admendment is there specifically to enforce the 1st and all others by the "government of the people, by the people and for the people".

I humbly request that you clarify further. Your friend,

Blessings, Bobo

[Pagey]

Hellary says: "how difficult it is to get real protection out of a protective order."

No kidding Hellary. Just because one has a court order to keep someone away from you, it doesn't really offer one any real security if the perpetrator really wants to injure you. She should be supporting a CCW law is what she should be doing , instead of telling us how the laws on the books aren't effective! But what else can one expect from a Clintoon?