Colorado GOP supports domestic abuse

[Tricky]

No, not really, but they do think that spousal abuse is less important than gun rights.

In terms of just sheer extremism, if ever there was a succinct, simple-to-understand bumper-sticker-ready metric for understanding the fringe-iness of today’s Republican Party, the fight in the Colorado legislature over gun rights for domestic abusers is it. As the Denver bureau of the Huffington Postreports, the Colorado bill in question simply “prohibits gun possession from those convicted of certain felonies involving domestic violence or certain misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (and) also prohibit guns from individuals subject to certain (domestic violence) protection orders.” According to a recent statewide poll in Colorado, that is a concept supported by 80 percent of voters – yet Republicans are opposed.

Seeing as how Colorado is waffling between Red and Blue these days, it appears that the state GOP is intent on retaining guns for everybody, regardless of their history of domestic abuse, so that they may continue to shoot themselves in the foot/feet.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Guns are a big issue here right now. Supposedly, a bunch of hunting shows planned to shoot in Colorado have cancelled, businesses are worried about losing the tourism dollars.

 

[Kestrel]

Guns are a big issue here right now. Supposedly, a bunch of hunting shows planned to shoot in Colorado have cancelled, businesses are worried about losing the tourism dollars.

Right wingers like to pretend they use their Bushmasters for hunting instead of as a prop for their fading manhood. Never mind that hunting big game with a .233 round or with more than six rounds in your firearm has been illegal in this state for years.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Interesting what it takes to get the GOP to make a stand for the rights of criminals.

 

[Polaris]

Right wingers like to pretend they use their Bushmasters for hunting instead of as a prop for their fading manhood. Never mind that hunting big game with a .233 round or with more than six rounds in your firearm has been illegal in this state for years.

And what do we left-wingers use our Bushmasters for, pray?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I love these JREF bait and switch threads. "Colorado GOP supports domestic abuse", oh, wit, no, they don't...

What a bastion of critical thinking and skepticism.

 

[A'isha]

I love these JREF bait and switch threads. "Colorado GOP supports domestic abuse", oh, wit, no, they don't...

They just think it's not anywhere near as important as making sure abusers can own guns.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting what it takes to get the GOP to make a stand for the rights of criminals.

Someone subject to a protective order isn't necessarily a criminal. Those are issued without any trial. I'm sympathetic to the problem of domestic abuse and the risk that abusers pose to their victims, but you're still talking about depriving someone of a constitutional right without trial. That really should strike you as problematic.

But it sounds to me like the GOP objections are even narrower than that. From one of the links within the original link,

Cadman, who'd told a gripping story Friday of his own family's domestic abuse situation, said this was a bill Republicans wanted to support but couldn't in its present form.
...
Under the bill, courts would be required to order anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order or convicted of domestic violence to relinquish their guns within 24 hours.
...
But GOP senators said the bill would essentially amount to gun confiscation, forcing people to sell their guns for next-to-nothing if they can't find a firearms dealer or local sheriff willing to hold their guns. And because the law applies even in cases of protective orders, someone would have be forced to give up their guns even before being convicted of a crime, GOP senators said.

It sounds to me like GOP objections could be satisfied rather easily: simply require local sheriffs to take custody of guns for those subject to protective orders. But of course, if your point is to simply smear your opponents rather than look for a solution, that doesn't matter. It's no surprise which path Salon took.

 

[Ziggurat]

And what do we left-wingers use our Bushmasters for, pray?

I don't know... hunting humans?

 

[A'isha]

I'm sympathetic to the problem of domestic abuse and the risk that abusers pose to their victims, but you're still talking about depriving someone of a constitutional right without trial.

If they don't even have a friend or relative who can legally possess firearms that they can transfer ownership to, then it's probably not surprising that they're the sort of person to have a domestic violence protective order issued against them.

But it sounds to me like the GOP objections are even narrower than that. From one of the links within the original link,

Yes, like I said, the GOP thinks that ensuring abusers can still own guns is more important than the issue of domestic abuse.

And also from that link,

Supporters, though, said 19 other states have similar laws and it has worked in those places.

 

[Ziggurat]

If they don't even have a friend or relative who can legally possess firearms that they can transfer ownership to, then it's probably not surprising that they're the sort of person to have a domestic violence protective order issued against them.

Such stereotyping has no place in the law. In addition, it's not even a useful stereotype. There are lots of reasons a person might not be able to find someone within the rather short period of 24 hours to take possession of the gun. Some friends or relatives might not want to do so (maybe they've got small children in their house). Some might not be available on short notice (maybe they're traveling). Some might be out of state. In other words, one does not need to be what you imply (a friendless loser) in order to not have a friend or relative they can transfer a gun to with just 24 hours notice.

Yes, like I said, the GOP thinks that ensuring abusers can still own guns is more important than the issue of domestic abuse.

Except that this is explicitly NOT what they are trying to do. That was my whole point, and you missed it. No, you didn't miss it, you ignored it. They appear quite willing to pass a version that would prevent exactly that. And that's even ignoring the fact that people subject to protective orders are not necessarily abusers, and have not been found as such by the law either.

 

[eeyore1954]

If they don't even have a friend or relative who can legally possess firearms that they can transfer ownership to, then it's probably not surprising that they're the sort of person to have a domestic violence protective order issued against them.

Yes, like I said, the GOP thinks that ensuring abusers can still own guns is more important than the issue of domestic abuse.

And also from that link,

You're kidding aren't you?

 

[A'isha]

Such stereotyping has no place in the law.

The law says that they have two days (three, if they appeal to the court) to find someone to hold on to their guns and write them a receipt - a gun shop, a local law enforcement office, or just some private party.

If they're so friendless and socially-isolated that they can't find anyone who is legally permitted to own firearms who will say "Sure, I'll hold on to these for you" in three days, I fail to see how that's the law's problem.

Except that this is explicitly NOT what they are trying to do.

If it's not what they're trying to do, then why are they doing it? Why are they putting the importance of abusers being able to own guns over the importance of domestic abuse? Especially when this law is only copying into Colorado state law what Federal law pretty much already says, and indeed provides for the exact same limitations on the kind of protective order that counts for the purposes of this state law as that Federal law does?

 

[Ziggurat]

The law says that they have two days (three, if they appeal to the court) to find someone to hold on to their guns and write them a receipt - a gun shop, a local law enforcement office, or just some private party.

It's two days for people served outside of court, but only one day for anyone served in court. And it's only extended to three days IF a judge grants an extension, but it is not automatic. So you're simply wrong about the times involved.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl...34FB057F87257B08007A98F7?Open&file=197_01.pdf

If they're so friendless and socially-isolated that they can't find anyone who is legally permitted to own firearms who will say "Sure, I'll hold on to these for you" in three days, I fail to see how that's the law's problem.

If it's not what they're trying to do, then why are they doing it?

Doing what? You seem to be confused on that point. They're opposed to the bill in its current form. They want to pass a bill very similar to this, but with some adjustments. I suggested one possible adjustment that would appear to answer their objections. You have yet to indicate why that adjustment would be unsatisfactory.

Why are they putting the importance of abusers being able to own guns over the importance of domestic abuse?

Why do you keep assuming that anyone subject to a protective order is an abuser? And what ever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Do you now believe that concept "puts the importance of killer being able to walk free over the importance of murder"?

Especially when this law is only copying into Colorado state law what Federal law pretty much already says, and indeed provides for the exact same limitations on the kind of protective order that counts for the purposes of this state law as that Federal law does?

That's simply not true. The law in question only prohibits transfer to such a person. It DOES NOT cover guns already owned by that person, and does not require any such guns be surrendered. Hell, if the Colorado bill only replicates what federal law already does, it would be pointless, and there wouldn't be any reason to get your panties in a bunch over Republican opposition to it either.

 

[A'isha]

Doing what? You seem to be confused on that point. They're opposed to the bill in its current form. They want to pass a bill very similar to this, but with some adjustments. I suggested one possible adjustment that would appear to answer their objections. You have yet to indicate why that adjustment would be unsatisfactory.

Because, as your link says, "Supporters, though, said 19 other states have similar laws and it has worked in those places."

Why do you keep assuming that anyone subject to a protective order is an abuser? And what ever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

I'm completely comfortable with the idea that anyone who has such a protective order issued to them "after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate, and which either includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of their intimate partner or child, or which by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against their intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury" has had sufficient legal protection in that regard. Apparently the Federal Government has agreed since 1968, since that's the standard they use to determine prohibition of gun purchases by or transfers to anyone subject to a protective order, without any of this "what ever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?" nonsense.

That's simply not true. The law in question only prohibits transfer to such a person. It DOES NOT cover guns already owned by that person, and does not require any such guns be surrendered. Hell, if the Colorado bill only replicates what federal law already does, it would be pointless, and there wouldn't be any reason to get your panties in a bunch over Republican opposition to it either.

Yes, the law merely makes the absolutely logical assumption that if someone is judged dangerous enough under Federal law to be prohibited from buying or being given guns altogether, then they're dangerous enough for the State to think they should temporarily give up any guns they currently own, just in case.

 

[theprestige]

Because, as your link says, "Supporters, though, said 19 other states have similar laws and it has worked in those places."

And the Colorado GOP also supports a similar law, and think it will work in Colorado.

Do you not know what "similar" means?

 

[A'isha]

And the Colorado GOP also supports a similar law, and think it will work in Colorado.

Not similar enough, apparently. Not until the GOP is satisfied that the law ensures a person who is banned entirely from buying or being given guns because they have a domestic violence protective order against them is given every opportunity to keep hold of the guns they already have, even though "[e]ach year, persons who commit domestic violence use firearms to threaten, injure, and kill victims, and firearms are the weapon used most often in deaths due to domestic violence; [and] [t]he immediate period proceeding a domestic violence conviction or the issuance of a domestic violence protection order is a particularly dangerous time for victims of domestic violence".

The GOP has its priorities.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because, as your link says, "Supporters, though, said 19 other states have similar laws and it has worked in those places."

Similar, but not the same. How do they differ? Since they do differ (or else the story would have said "identical"), evidently the exact specifications of this law aren't what backers feel is required. So again, why would the change I suggested not suffice, since the resulting law would still be very similar?

I'm completely comfortable with the idea that anyone who has such a protective order issued to them "after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate, and which either includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of their intimate partner or child, or which by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against their intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury" has had sufficient legal protection in that regard. Apparently the Federal Government has agreed since 1968, since that's the standard they use to determine prohibition of gun purchases by or transfers to anyone subject to a protective order, without any of this "what ever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?" nonsense.

Again, you fail to comprehend the difference between this Colorado bill and federal law, as well as the objection to it. For one, the federal law requires that for most protective orders to restrict gun purchases, the order must have been "issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate". No such protection exists within the Colorado bill. If you get a surprise protective order issued against you from a court hearing you never knew about, the only effect that has is an extra 24 hours to get rid of your guns.

For another, restricting future purchases is not equivalent to demanding forfeiture of existing property, which is the objection here. And no, the feds don't agree on that point. That you feel it a good idea to go further than prohibition on future purchases does not mean the feds do, because apparently they don't, because they didn't.

Yes, the law merely makes the absolutely logical assumption that if someone is judged dangerous enough under Federal law to be prohibited from buying or being given guns altogether, then they're dangerous enough for the State to think they should temporarily give up any guns they currently own, just in case.

You're still wrong. As I pointed out above, Colorado law applies to protective orders that the federal law does not apply to.

And still you won't answer me as to why the changes I suggested would be unacceptable to you, either. Your above "response" is not a real response at all, and does nothing to actually answer that question.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not similar enough, apparently. Not until the GOP is satisfied that the law ensures a person who is banned entirely from buying or being given guns because they have a domestic violence protective order against them is given every opportunity to keep hold of the guns they already have, even though "[e]ach year, persons who commit domestic violence use firearms to threaten, injure, and kill victims, and firearms are the weapon used most often in deaths due to domestic violence; [and] [t]he immediate period proceeding a domestic violence conviction or the issuance of a domestic violence protection order is a particularly dangerous time for victims of domestic violence".

The GOP has its priorities.

Except that the change I suggested would do just as much as the existing bill to remove guns from the hands of people who have protective orders issued against them. It would not allow a single additional person to keep their guns while subject to a protective order. So again, on what grounds do you object to my suggested change? It sure as hell isn't on the grounds you're presenting here. I can only conclude that your purpose is not reasoned debate, but merely partisan attack.

 

[A'isha]

Again, you fail to comprehend the difference between this Colorado bill and federal law, as well as the objection to it. For one, the federal law requires that for most protective orders to restrict gun purchases, the order must have been "issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate". No such protection exists within the Colorado bill.

You posted a link to the bill...didn't you bother to read it?

SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 13-14-102, add (22) as follows:

13-14-102. Civil protection orders - legislative declaration. (22) (a) WHEN THE COURT SUBJECTS A PERSON TO A CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER TO PREVENT DOMESTIC ABUSE, WHICH PROTECTION ORDER QUALIFIES AS AN ORDER DESCRIBED IN 18 U.S.C. SEC. 922 (d) (8) AND (g) (8), THE COURT, AS PART OF SUCH ORDER, SHALL REQUIRE THE PERSON TO :

(I) REFRAIN FROM POSSESSING OR PURCHASING ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER; AND

(II) RELINQUISH, FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER, ANY FIREARM OR AMMUNITION IN THE RESPONDENT'S IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OR SUBJECT TO THE RESPONDENT'S IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OR CONTROL.

In other words, for the terms of this Colorado bill to apply to a person who has a protection order issued against him, that order has to meet the same criteria as used for the Federal law.

You're still wrong. As I pointed out above, Colorado law applies to protective orders that the federal law does not apply to.

And still you won't answer me as to why the changes I suggested would be unacceptable to you, either. Your above "response" is not a real response at all, and does nothing to actually answer that question.

They aren't unacceptable. I just don't care that they're not in there.