Skip to comments.DC considering bill to force gun owners with temporary restraining order to give up weapon
Posted on 05/30/2014 6:59:38 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
WASHINGTON - The D.C. Council is considering a bill that would force registered gun owners to give up their weapons if those owners are slapped with a temporary restraining order.
Under current federal law, domestic abusers are already prohibited from having a gun. That happens if you are convicted of domestic violence or subject to a final restraining order.
What D.C. is going after is that gap of time between a temporary restraining order and a final restraining order, which happens when a defendant has a chance to go before a judge and make their case.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxdc.com ...
I wonder what a FULL tourist boycott of Wash DC would do. Especially from Virginians. After all, we are at war.
WAKE UP AMERICA! YOU'RE LOSING YOUR FREEDOMS!
there is a hysteria to push thru all kinds of gun control. I think the elites know a collapse is coming.
I propose a new bill: A 30 day waiting period before any democrat, regardless of mortal staus, not to mention intelligence, from voting one week befor an election.
If it saves just one Republic, it’s worth it.
Okay, the verbiage might need work, but I’m sure we can come up with something. Registration, ID’s, videotaping the voting booth of democrats.
These people are killers after all. They’ll kill your freedoms in a heartbeat.
These so-called temporary bills are never temporary. Even if you can get the weapon back, you will have to pay hundreds of dollars to do so.
DC in no way needs tourist dollars. It has other, more dependable sources of money - like taxpayers.
“I wonder what a FULL tourist boycott of Wash DC would do. Especially from Virginians. After all, we are at war.”
I’ve managed to not visit DC for my first 59 years. I reckon I could go another 59 years.
In addition to that, schools and even doctors will ask questions to find out if and how many firearms are in the household.
Then it’s just a matter of who gets the judge to issue a restraining order.
One only has to ask what a registered gun owner is to get to the bottom of the well. Nevertheless it is so easy to see where all this is headed. There will be ten thousand reason you can’t have one, just as there are ten thousand reason that you can’t be prohibited from killing what grows in the womb. You just can’t do it with a gun. Scissors, knife, no problem.
I had a gun stolen from me years ago and it was used to put the perp away. I called recently about getting it back, and was told that they were going to do a background check on ME before giving it to me.
WTF is this country coming to?
I wonder what would happen if the NRA came out with an ad stating that the second amendment is settled law.
No, that’s already federal under the VAWA and applies to restraining orders with a mandatory 5 year sentence. And Colorado already passed a similar bill along with quite a few other gun control bills.
I know that Congress has the constitutional Article I, Section 8 authority to decide things like this for the armed forces. However, noting that the 2nd Amendment certainly isn't an express delegation of power to the feds to regulate firearms, I have no idea where the feds get the constitutional authority to regulate civilian firearms.
In fact, note that modern federal gun regulation laws are traceable to Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR, FDR infamous for ignoring the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
Again, I don't see where the states have expressly delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulatate civilian firearms.
Do statistics show a lot of shootings in DC between the temporary and final restraint hearings? My guess = no.
Just another gun grab by liberals.