Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The NRA Quietly Backs Down On Domestic Violence
HuffPo ^ | 4/22/2014 | Laura Basset & Christina Wilkie

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: amendments; banglist; christinawilkie; compromise; demagogicparty; domesticviolence; hb1840; huffpo; laurabasset; memebuilding; nra; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; restrainingorder; washington
This is an interesting development on how the NRA approaches a difficult issue. Not sure how I feel about it, especially since it gives one party the upper hand when nothing has been fully adjudicated. I have no respect for violent persons in a spousal relationship, no matter the sex, and this might address removing the stupid factor for those who would seek to resolve the dispute with a gun. OTOH, the he said/she said factor cannot be denied.

Looking forward to the comments and various points that need to be considered on this.

1 posted on 04/23/2014 4:05:41 AM PDT by T-Bird45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

so if an angry ex makes an allegation you lose your registered weapons?


2 posted on 04/23/2014 4:14:10 AM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

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.


3 posted on 04/23/2014 4:19:22 AM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

Sorry meant “jack wagon”.


4 posted on 04/23/2014 4:20:00 AM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
"... shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"

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.

5 posted on 04/23/2014 4:20:50 AM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

No, you lose ALL of your firearms that the accusing spouse alerts the courts to.

“registered” is not a consideration.


6 posted on 04/23/2014 4:44:58 AM PDT by G Larry (There's the Beef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I tried to read the law but I could not find where you get your weapons back after being found innocent of charges.


7 posted on 04/23/2014 4:48:58 AM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

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.”


8 posted on 04/23/2014 4:53:25 AM PDT by G Larry (There's the Beef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


9 posted on 04/23/2014 4:56:59 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

there is no due process in this

these orders are valid whether or not they are served


10 posted on 04/23/2014 4:57:42 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


11 posted on 04/23/2014 5:00:26 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain
The law is unconstitutional on its face. NRA is wrong to go along with this tyranny.

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).

12 posted on 04/23/2014 5:01:18 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

> 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.


13 posted on 04/23/2014 5:02:10 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
in exchange for a few minor changes
Minor changes like due process...
14 posted on 04/23/2014 5:03:37 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


15 posted on 04/23/2014 5:07:09 AM PDT by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

“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.


16 posted on 04/23/2014 5:13:44 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


17 posted on 04/23/2014 5:18:20 AM PDT by basil (2ASisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


18 posted on 04/23/2014 5:31:12 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45; harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; blackie; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; ...
Huffington Post. Read with care.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

19 posted on 04/23/2014 5:36:16 AM PDT by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

Without knowing the wording of the original bill and the NRA’s agreed upon changes, then this article by Huffpo is pure propaganda.


20 posted on 04/23/2014 5:46:36 AM PDT by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

Once they take them away, you’ll never get them back.


21 posted on 04/23/2014 5:58:17 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The best way to control opposition is to lead it ourselves." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45; All

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.


22 posted on 04/23/2014 6:14:06 AM PDT by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

They’d have to find all of mine first.


23 posted on 04/23/2014 6:23:42 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

Bingo.


24 posted on 04/23/2014 6:27:44 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
This is pure crap. Some chick gets angry at you because [whatever], and she calls the cops because you frowned at her.

They trot right over and take your guns, killing your dog in the process.

UTTER B******T

25 posted on 04/23/2014 6:30:56 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
A LARGE percentage of domestic separations get VERY ugly with ALL SORTS of false accusations thrown around by BOTH parties. Merely an accusation without a conviction in a courtroom, should NOT be sufficient to abridge a basic constitutional and human right.
26 posted on 04/23/2014 6:56:51 AM PDT by ZULU (STOP JEB BUSH!!!! NO MORE BUSHES!! US OUT OF THE UN AND UN OUT OF US!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


27 posted on 04/23/2014 7:03:03 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

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.


28 posted on 04/23/2014 7:04:32 AM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I believe they take your ammo as well, as anything to do with operating and firing a weapon.


29 posted on 04/23/2014 7:06:30 AM PDT by SgtHooper (I lost my tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

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....


30 posted on 04/23/2014 7:15:53 AM PDT by G Larry (There's the Beef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
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.

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.

31 posted on 04/23/2014 7:22:40 AM PDT by zeugma (Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened - Dr. Seuss (I'll see you again someday Hope))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel; yldstrk
Lousenberg's legislation is also unconstitutional on its face. It (and this state "law") clearly violate both due process and non-infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. It is an infringement of rights and a deprivation of property purely on someone's say-so, with no opportunity for even a rebuttal much less a trial.

It's evil, it's totalitarian, and it's very un-American.

32 posted on 04/23/2014 7:29:56 AM PDT by NorthMountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan
The NRA and John Boehner are of the same stuff.
-=0=-

Preach it bruddah, preach it.....

33 posted on 04/23/2014 7:39:10 AM PDT by S.O.S121.500 (Had Enough Yet ? ........................ Enforce the Bill of Rights ......... It's the LAW !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

Guilty until proven Innocent.

Did we just travel back in time to the Soviet Union?


34 posted on 04/23/2014 7:40:43 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (Nobody owes you a living, so shut up and get back to work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NorthMountain

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.


35 posted on 04/23/2014 7:45:48 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

I agree completely with what you are saying, I was just pointing out how they think it is suppose to work, not real life.


36 posted on 04/23/2014 8:08:42 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45

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.


37 posted on 04/23/2014 9:02:17 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
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..)

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.

38 posted on 04/23/2014 9:29:53 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Agreed!


39 posted on 04/23/2014 11:56:48 AM PDT by SgtHooper (I lost my tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan
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.

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.

40 posted on 04/23/2014 12:55:07 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Stand up and be counted... OR LINE UP AND BE NUMBERED...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson