Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The case cited by ellemint, is a typical fib. There WAS a law forbidding that guy from owning or carrying a gun: The Lautenberg Amendment. It was unconstitutional, of course, but it was there. He violated it. The idea that making more laws would somehow make him start obeying them, is ludicrous. Nonetheless, it is typical of those who complain (or legislate) before they think.
"Washington State has seen several efforts to enact firearm surrender laws.
As I pointed out, no such law was or is needed. A federal law (however unconstitutional) makes it illegal for anyone under a judge's order restraining him against domestic violence, to own firearms.
As I also pointed out, this guy violated that law. And he also happily violated the law that bans threatening people's lives.
What makes you think passing more laws, will change anything?
The man has a right to own and carry a gun. He does not have a right to commit an assault on anyone by threatening anyone with that gun. IMHO he should have been detained by the police as he had shown a complete disregard for the law and for human life by his act of aggravated assault. As part of his bail he should have had to relinquish all of his guns to the police for public safety until his case was adjudicated. If he was found guilty of assault he should have been jailed or paroled and his guns permanently, along with his right to own firearms, removed as he is now a felon. If he was found not guilty he firearms should be returned to his possession.
It is not the right to own a firearm that is at question here. It is what you do with a firearm that makes the difference.
As I pointed out, no such law was or is needed. A federal law (however unconstitutional) makes it illegal for anyone under a judge's order restraining him against domestic violence, to own firearms.
As I also pointed out, this guy violated that law. And he also happily violated the law that bans threatening people's lives.
What makes you think passing more laws, will change anything?
There must be some loopholes in the federal law, or else it's not being applied, otherwise why are some states choosing to pass additional laws about protective orders and guns?
There must be some loopholes in the federal law, or else it's not being applied, otherwise why are some states choosing to pass additional laws about protective orders and guns?
One reason lawmakers write new laws that are the same as existing laws is that 1) they dont know the law is out there and 2) it is a great marketing opportunity to get their name out to their constituents who are also ignorant of the existing laws.
It is not within the ability of the law to prevent criminal actions, it can only define what makes the action criminal. We have many laws on the books just because it makes someone feel good to pass a law or because they can collect a lot more money by being on the record for a cause. Murder has been against the law in any form for many, many generations and it still occurs. A new law against murder by a specific means will not make any difference. If a person will risk the consequences of a murder charge, why do you think a lesser charge of illegal possession of a firearm will make them think twice?
One reason lawmakers write new laws that are the same as existing laws is that 1) they dont know the law is out there and 2) it is a great marketing opportunity to get their name out to their constituents who are also ignorant of the existing laws.
It is not within the ability of the law to prevent criminal actions, it can only define what makes the action criminal. We have many laws on the books just because it makes someone feel good to pass a law or because they can collect a lot more money by being on the record for a cause. Murder has been against the law in any form for many, many generations and it still occurs. A new law against murder by a specific means will not make any difference. If a person will risk the consequences of a murder charge, why do you think a lesser charge of illegal possession of a firearm will make them think twice?
There is sound evidence that tighter gun laws DO reduce domestic violence homicides.
A recent research study analyzed the effects of statutes aimed at restricting access to firearms for perpetrators of domestic violence, on intimate partner homicide, from 46 of the largest US cities from 1979 to 2003. Both total intimate partner homicide and intimate partner homicide committed with a firearm were analysed.
Results showed that restricting those under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms, is associated with reductions in total and firearm intimate partner violence.
A research study in JAMA found that firearm -associated family and intimate assaults were twelve times more likely to result in death than non-firearm incidents. People like to argue that fists, or knives, or strangulation could be used if a gun wasn't available, when it's clear that guns are more lethal and effective, it's just nonsense to dismiss this---1200 % more likely to result in domestic violence homicides.
Saltzman et al., 1992. "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults", JAMA, Vol. 267, No. 22: 3043-3047.
A summary by the Justice Department of Canada states that: "The research on homicide suggests that given an attack, firearms are more likely to result in serious injury and death than if another weapon is used. Firearm attacks are about three times more likely to result in death than knife attacks and many times more likely to be lethal than attacks involving other methods."
There must be some loopholes in the federal law, or else it's not being applied, otherwise why are some states choosing to pass additional laws about protective orders and guns?
Seriously? Do you actually need this explained to you??!
Local law enforcement agencies - you know, the people you want to take our guns at the whim of a jilted ex-girlfriend or something - cannot enforce federal laws. The Obama administration has made this abundantly clear; just look at Arizona and their illegal immigration issues.
So if you want local agencies to show up and deal with the situation, there must be laws that exist within that jurisdiction (state/local level) that they can enforce. No law = no enforcement. Get it?
There is sound evidence that tighter gun laws DO reduce domestic violence homicides.
A recent research study analyzed the effects of statutes aimed at restricting access to firearms for perpetrators of domestic violence, on intimate partner homicide, from 46 of the largest US cities from 1979 to 2003. Both total intimate partner homicide and intimate partner homicide committed with a firearm were analysed.
Results showed that restricting those under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms, is associated with reductions in total and firearm intimate partner violence.
A research study in JAMA found that firearm -associated family and intimate assaults were twelve times more likely to result in death than non-firearm incidents. People like to argue that fists, or knives, or strangulation could be used if a gun wasn't available, when it's clear that guns are more lethal and effective, it's just nonsense to dismiss this---1200 % more likely to result in domestic violence homicides.
Saltzman et al., 1992. "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults", JAMA, Vol. 267, No. 22: 3043-3047.
A summary by the Justice Department of Canada states that: "The research on homicide suggests that given an attack, firearms are more likely to result in serious injury and death than if another weapon is used. Firearm attacks are about three times more likely to result in death than knife attacks and many times more likely to be lethal than attacks involving other methods."
Still waiting for you to provide legal justification for stripping people of their 5th, 2nd, 4th and 6th Amendment rights. Or are you just going to ignore that little inconvenience?
I can't believe that any of you think that this violent husband deserved the right to keep his guns after threatening his wife's life with them. Now, after he has ambushed his wife and their children, and held them at gunpoint, NOW, do you think his guns should be confiscated? Or would you rather wait until he shoots his wife and children to death, and then you can all shake your heads sorrowfully and say what a shame?
Ok, let me see if I can get through to you. Getting a restrainging order isn't that difficult to do. The person whom the restraining order is against does not have to go to court, the person wanting the RO doesn't need to PROOVE anything and doesn't need to face who they accuse. There is no due process for an RO. It's basically a peice of paper that the police can use if someone is bothering you, scaring you, and what not... they can come pick the person up and keep them away from you just because of the RO.
BUT having an RO on yourself, does not mean you were PROVEN guilty of ANYTHING!! And in THIS country, our legal system is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around.
Because of this, an RO should NEVER be used to take away someones constitutional rights! EVER!!!
Constitutional rights ALWAYS trump someone just saying something bad happened! And really and RO is just a he said she said on paper.
The other thing about this story, is that he violated the restraining order. He's not exactly someone who is going to be following laws. So taking his gun away isn't going to keep him from hurting the person he wants to hurt. He could beat her, stab her, throw acid on her... hell all of those things and worse have happened to women by the men (and women) they've had RO's on. So really, violating someone's constitutional rights to pretend it will help someone is just ridiculous!
Still waiting for you to provide legal justification for stripping people of their 5th, 2nd, 4th and 6th Amendment rights. Or are you just going to ignore that little inconvenience?
Actual research findings on the relationship between gun laws and domestic violence homicide is irrelevant? FAIL.
I'm not interested in changing this into a discussion on constitutional rights. To me that's not what this topic is about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
