Skip to comments.The NRA Quietly Backs Down On Domestic Violence
Posted on 04/23/2014 4:05:41 AM PDT by T-Bird45
WASHINGTON -- For nearly a decade, the National Rifle Association successfully blocked a bill in Washington state that would have required alleged domestic abusers to surrender their firearms after being served with a protective order. Only those actually convicted of felony domestic violence, the nation's largest gun lobby argued, should be made to forfeit their gun rights.
This past year, the NRA changed its tune. As the bill, HB 1840, once again moved through the state legislature, the gun lobby made a backroom deal with lawmakers, agreeing to drop its public opposition to it in exchange for a few minor changes. This February, with the NRA's tacit approval, the bill sailed through the state legislature in a rare unanimous vote.
The NRA's decision not to oppose the measure was a stark departure from its usual legislative strategy. For over a decade, bare-knuckled lobbying by the NRA has doomed similar bills in state legislatures across the country. Legislators who backed such bills, particularly in states with strong traditions of gun ownership, could practically be guaranteed a challenger after the NRA withdrew its endorsements or backed their opponents.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Looking forward to the comments and various points that need to be considered on this.
so if an angry ex makes an allegation you lose your registered weapons?
Almost seems like a feel good thing, If some jacking wagon is hell bent on offing you taking away his or hers weapons prolly will not stop them. Best to be armed and prepared yourself.
Sorry meant “jack wagon”.
Where's the due process of law in this?
Nowhere, obviously. The law is unconstitutional on its face. NRA is wrong to go along with this tyranny.
No, you lose ALL of your firearms that the accusing spouse alerts the courts to.
“registered” is not a consideration.
I tried to read the law but I could not find where you get your weapons back after being found innocent of charges.
Whether or when you might get your weapons back, is likely determined by the whims of the agency holding them.
Expect to hear, “Oh, I’m sorry, those have been destroyed.”
These protective orders are used to grab custody without going to court, to get the spouse out of the house without going to court, to land the spouse in jail to assist in your custody battle and all such orders are not based in fact. To then say that someone served with one can’t have a gun leaves the person served with such an order without means of defense.
there is no due process in this
these orders are valid whether or not they are served
A judge has to sign off on a protective order first, I guess that is where the due process comes into play.
Usually you have to have some kind of proof to have a restraining order put on someone, you just can’t walk in and demand they have their rights taken away. (usually..)
Perhaps if some violent guy with a nice collection has them taken away from him it’s just another reason for him to go off on the person, maybe it will be the straw that broke the camels back and he uses a butchers knife instead.
Bet if someone tells the cops that was the reason he did it it won’t make the news either.
I agree, but this legislation is somewhat redundant. The same thing has existed as federal law since 1997 in the form of the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban" or "Lautenberg Amendment" (to the Omnibus Appropriations bill of that year).
> agreeing to drop its public opposition to it in exchange for a few minor changes.
IOW, perhaps the deal-killing leftist garbage finally got stripped out of the bill? Thanks T-Bird45. HuffPo sucks, btw.
in exchange for a few minor changesMinor changes like due process...
Once again, an NRA sell out. If one’s guns may be seized on a mere accusation of potential wrong doing, I suppose one’s land may be seized on an accusation of intent to commit a crime thereon. The NRA and John Boehner are of the same stuff.
“so if an angry ex makes an allegation you lose your registered weapons?”
That is exactly how it will work. In every divorce judges pass out restraining orders like candy at a parade, no proof of any kind required.
So, the soon to be, X-b**ch on wheels will have a new tool to punish you with, having your 2nd amendment rights taken away.
When I was much younger, and a lot more naive, I volunteered at a “battered women’s” shelter.
This is where I began to learn how the system works. The shelter was located in a medium sized town in Oklahoma. My friend and I heard that they needed a few volunteers to help out at the shelter—so we decided to do it.
In the 2 years that we volunteered there, I saw, perhaps 3 or 4 battered women-—1 was really badly hurt.
The rest of our “guests” were just gaming the system. They’d get kicked out of their apartments for not paying their rent, say, and they would make up a sad story about some man either threatening them or slapping them around, and we would take them in.
To make a long story a bit shorter-—this was an eye-opening experience for me——it was where I first started learning about liberal do-gooders with good intentions that don’t accomplish much.
Too many times during the course of a break up and divorce, the woman’s lawyer will automatically file for a restraining order and it is automatically granted by the court.
This law would force someone to lose a constitutionally-protected right based only upon an accusation. What happened to due process?
Maybe if lawyers automatically lost their BAR license if they are under a restraining order, things might be different.
Without knowing the wording of the original bill and the NRA’s agreed upon changes, then this article by Huffpo is pure propaganda.
Once they take them away, you’ll never get them back.
I recall reading about this. My recollection is that this was going to pass. Second Amendment supporters simply did not have the votes to stop it.
What they were attempting to modify was the requirement that the guns be turned over to law enforcement, instead, they could be held by a third party until the dispute was resolved.
I think that was one of the major things that was changed about the bill.
The article is nothing but a hit piece on the NRA and gun owners, IMHO.
They’d have to find all of mine first.
They trot right over and take your guns, killing your dog in the process.
When my ex-wife divorced me “without cause”, they took my SKS. There was no record of domestic violence, etc. Actually, they didn’t take it, I gave it to a friend for safekeeping and they called it good. It’s a reasonable precaution. You never know what a guy is going to do when someone rips his family apart.
I got it back the day the divorce was final.
Well, people often spend time in jail before they are actually convicted. It’s complicated. Fact is, it is clearly legal to reduce someone’s constitutional rights when they are accused of certain crimes. I lump this in with the jail thing.
I believe they take your ammo as well, as anything to do with operating and firing a weapon.
I’m not planning on misbehaven...but
there are a couple of reasons to have “Plan B” storage locations.
Especially the half that have ZERO paper trail....
Sorry, but "usually" you don't need anything but the words coming out of an Ex's mouth. This is bad law in every way. If someone is afraid of someone else's guns, they'd be better off arming themselves, not depending on jackbooted thugs to disarm someone else.
It's evil, it's totalitarian, and it's very un-American.
Guilty until proven Innocent.
Did we just travel back in time to the Soviet Union?
Yep, and then there’s the issue of these laws being applied retroactively against people who had restraining orders issued against them long before Frank Lautenberg even dreamed this up. The intentional blurring of the differences between misdemeanors and felonies is abhorrent as well. The only places you see that are where the federal government is interested in exerting power - war on drugs, anti-gun initiatives, etc.
I agree completely with what you are saying, I was just pointing out how they think it is suppose to work, not real life.
Before we start excoriating the NRA lets put the blame squarely where it belongs. That is the electorate of the state. If people in any state are stupid enough to allow the crazy gun legislation to pass and stand then whose fault is it? At some point you have to own it.
In general that's probably true, but in some jurisdictions they're just issuing them by default in every divorce proceeding, I hear. Often against just the husband in today's anti-male courts, but sometimes against both parties.
While I admit the NRA ain't perfect, before you judge it too harshly, you ought to consider how long we'd have been able to keep our weapons without it's support and leverage. They'd have been long gone, I suspect. Also, try not to judge them on the basis of observations made by screaming lib-tards like huff-po. They want you to turn on the NRA for a reason. Yes there are other, more pro-active progun groups. But few if any have the long standing clout and base of operations that NRA does. I've been one of their instructors for 25 years and I'm an Endowment Life Member so I would admit to a certain favorable bias, but the fact remains that they cause liberal heads to explode at the mere mention of their name (initials). That happens for a reason and it should count for something, I would think. So ease up on them, okay? Because you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.
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.