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.
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.