Restraining gun control

Gun advocacy group says arming victims better plan than disarming people under restraining orders.
Associated Press
May 17, 2013

 

A group of Democratic lawmakers in Ohio say domestic-violence deaths can be prevented by taking guns away from people served with restraining orders.

Legislation introduced by Rep. Bob Hagan, a Youngstown Democrat, would require those subject to domestic-violence protection orders to temporarily give up their weapons to law enforcement within 24 hours of being served.

The bill would also give defendants the option to sell their weapons to a licensed federal dealer instead of handing them over.

The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reports that the proposal irked an Ohio gun advocacy group that has argued that one solution to domestic violence might be arming the victims.

The measure would need to gain ground with Republicans to survive the GOP-controlled Legislature.

------

Information from: The Plain Dealer, http://www.cleveland.com

Comments

KnuckleDragger

Actually, no new legislation needs to be enacted. The victim can already apply for an emergency CCW. All they need to do is fill out the paperwork and show a need, and they can have one issued. The problem with legislation to disarm people with a temp protection order is that it means nearly every man going through a divorce would have to surrender his guns. I have had attorneys say it is standard to get a temp protection order during a a divorce because of the emotions involved. The funny thing is, that the only people being affected would be men which in my book makes it discrimination.

concernedtruth

Typically men are the aggressor in these situations, very rarely women are the aggressor during a divorce, I am mixed on this, I do feel this is a possible direction to go in and I am believe in the right to own and bear arms in a very strong way. However, quite often the male is the one causing serious harm to the female during a domestic/divorce dispute and I feel that if that is the case take the weapons out of their hands till the divorce is over and maybe even for an additional 1 yr. just to be sure they don't settle and then the aggressor goes a month or two later and kills the wife and possibly the children.

abigbear

women can get a gun for protection there is no this is ok and thats not it all or nothing

SamAdams

I have a little personal knowledge here, and that knowledge makes it abundantly clear that even requiring somebody under a restraining order to give up a firearm is completely meaningless. The man (or woman) can claim to have sold the gun(s) in question. They can claim to have given it to another family member for safe-keeping. They can claim they never OWNED a gun. Or they can turn in one or more, but KEEP one or more. And I'll tell you right now that repeated complaints to the Sheriff resulted in the confiscation of a grand total of ZERO firearms in the case I'm referencing.

The only SURE protection is for the potential victim to be armed. He or she can, of course, choose NOT to be. But before deciding, they should also be aware that a restraining order isn't bullet proof. It's just a piece of paper. And somebody inclined to ignore the laws against murder isn't likely to let that piece of paper stop them!

looking around

Sam, you make a good case for mandatory registration of all firearms with a history of transfer, sale or theft. Along with ownership should come responsibility and accountability. In many states such as New York, all firearms are listed by type and serial number on the permit, updates are made by mandatory reports to the issuing authority.

eriemom

My thinking is that a couple living together in the same house will likely know what guns are in that house. Beyond that, I'm not sure how you would enforce. Guns do have a way of disappearing when you're not looking.

abigbear

everyone needs to carry

getit right be4...

Where is the due-process? Why would one give up his/her personal property without a day in court? I for one will not.

JACKEL

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

zachfromsandusky2

Trust me if you have a spouse you Harry enough to divorce and want dead , taking their gun won't stop them. They will grab a knife a bat a hammer use their bare hands to strangle them or Hey they could even use water and down them but u don't see the libs saying ban water

zachfromsandusky2

Trust me if you have a spouse you Harry enough to divorce and want dead , taking their gun won't stop them. They will grab a knife a bat a hammer use their bare hands to strangle them or Hey they could even use water and down them but u don't see the libs saying ban water