Colorado GOP supports domestic abuse

[C_Felix]

Lemme get this straight:
I have an order of protection against my domestic abuser.
Since I have this order, I can't own a gun.


Did I mis-read something

 

[sarge]

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.

It should not be the responsibility of the accused to find someone to safeguard the gun, nor is it reasonable to allow the accused to select the agency that will safeguard the gun.

It makes much more sense for the state to hold the gun, for two reasons:

1. The burden of storage rightly belongs with the government, as they are the party ordering the storage.

2. It would not serve to provide protection from gun violence if the accused can pick a friend to hold the gun.

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

There is nothing in the information provided that indicates that the concern is for gun rights at the expense of increased risk for domestic violence.

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and the Colorado legislature can work it out so that the burden of storage will fall on the state (at virtually no expense, BTW) where it rightly belongs, thereby providing some measure of protection during the initial stages of an allegation of abuse.

If the allegations of abuse are substantiated, then cause the abuser to forever forfeit a right to own a gun. In the meantime, a temporary suspension of possession without causing the owner to incur an unrecoverable expense is the more appropriate resonse.

 

[A'isha]

Lemme get this straight:
I have an order of protection against my domestic abuser.
Since I have this order, I can't own a gun.


Did I mis-read something

No, since they have the order against them, they can't own a gun. If you're the one that the protection order against them is protecting, then you can still have a gun.

Well, assuming you meet all the other legal criteria for it.

 

[A'isha]

It should not be the responsibility of the accused to find someone to safeguard the gun, nor is it reasonable to allow the accused to select the agency that will safeguard the gun.

It makes much more sense for the state to hold the gun, for two reasons:

1. The burden of storage rightly belongs with the government, as they are the party ordering the storage.

2. It would not serve to provide protection from gun violence if the accused can pick a friend to hold the gun.

That's certainly a much more reasonable argument than the ones that have been put forward.

There is nothing in the information provided that indicates that the concern is for gun rights at the expense of increased risk for domestic violence.

I disagree:

"This bill is ripe for abuse," [Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs] said. "It's ripe for confiscation of personal private property."

[...]

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.

Their objections are only about the rights of gun owners, and not a single thing about domestic violence (much less the increased risk thereof).

 

[Ziggurat]

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

You don't care... but it's somehow not acceptable that Republicans do? That makes no sense. It seems like you'd rather have something to blame them for than actually get the bill changed and passed with their support.

And sarge is right, it would be safer if the state were required to maintain custody of surrendered firearms than if the person subject to the order were allowed to pick who gets to keep the weapon.

 

[respect]

You don't care... but it's somehow not acceptable that Republicans do? That makes no sense. It seems like you'd rather have something to blame them for than actually get the bill changed and passed with their support.

And sarge is right, it would be safer if the state were required to maintain custody of surrendered firearms than if the person subject to the order were allowed to pick who gets to keep the weapon.

But...but...WAR ON WOMEN!!!!!

 

[A'isha]

You don't care... but it's somehow not acceptable that Republicans do? That makes no sense.

I don't care whether the bill passes with it, or without it. They're the ones wanting to hold up the bill over it.

What part of that makes no sense to you?

It seems like you'd rather have something to blame them for than actually get the bill changed and passed with their support.

No, I blame them for not wanting to pass the bill because they're more worried about the gun ownership rights of domestic abusers than about the abuse.

And sarge is right, it would be safer if the state were required to maintain custody of surrendered firearms than if the person subject to the order were allowed to pick who gets to keep the weapon.

So the fact that I'm not for mandatory government confiscation of firearms from someone who hasn't been convicted of anything as a condition for support of this bill is a problem for you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Their objections are only about the rights of gun owners, and not a single thing about domestic violence (much less the increased risk thereof).

You're not making any sense. Why would they object to the bill on the basis of protecting victims of domestic violence? They are fully in support of those aspects, so of course they aren't going to object on those grounds. Do you want them to object to the fact that this protects victims of domestic violence?

If your point is simply that the quote doesn't show any concern for victims, I've got news for you: journalists pick what quotes to print, and they usually don't print everything someone says. It's naive to think that such a story reflects the totality of someone's views. But even there, you're wrong: "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." Furthermore, with the sort of change I've suggested, there is no increased risk compared to the bill in its current form.

 

[sarge]

Their objections are only about the rights of gun owners, and not a single thing about domestic violence (much less the increased risk thereof).

I don't see that there is an objection to be made about domestic abuse. the bill adequately addresses the danger of domestic abuse due to the immediate availability of a gun. Well, almost anyway.

The only thing to object to in the bill is the unfair burden of storage. Making this objection does not automatically mean that the objector cares more for guns rights than for reducing domestic violence. One need not come at the expense of the other, and the right time to get a bill correct is before it passes.

The GOP may favor gun rights even if it means greater danger to domestic partners, but I don't think it fair to draw that conclusion from this story.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't care whether the bill passes with it, or without it. They're the ones wanting to hold up the bill over it.

What part of that makes no sense to you?

The part where you don't think the bill should be amended so that it doesn't get held up, and where you don't hold the Democrats accountable for not making such changes in order to get it passed.

No, I blame them for not wanting to pass the bill

But they do want to pass the bill. They said so explicitly. They just want to make some small changes to it, changes of the sort that you don't even object to, changes that will do nothing to compromise anyone's safety.

So the fact that I'm not for mandatory government confiscation of firearms from someone who hasn't been convicted of anything as a condition for support of this bill is a problem for you?

The fact that you're intent on using this as a partisan prop is a problem for me.

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
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."

Are you saying a law is ok because its supporters say other states have similar laws and it has worked out?

 

[A'isha]

You're not making any sense.

Try reading my posts, it'll help.

Why would they object to the bill on the basis of protecting victims of domestic violence?

I don't know, because that's not anything I am or have been arguing. Sarge said "There is nothing in the information provided that indicates that the concern is for gun rights at the expense of increased risk for domestic violence". and I pointed out that all of the GOP's objections were strictly about a concern for the gun rights of the domestic abuser, when the bill itself highlights the importance of restricting the possession and ownership of guns from both those convicted of domestic violence and those who have a protective order issued against them.

The GOP would rather see no bill at all protecting victims of domestic violence from gun violence in this fashion, than see a bill that protected victims of domestic violence from gun violence in this fashion if it meant risking the gun rights of domestic abusers.

They are fully in support of those aspects, so of course they aren't going to object on those grounds. Do you want them to object to the fact that this protects victims of domestic violence?

No, I want them to stop objecting to the fact that this bill means that domestic abusers will have to give up their guns, however temporarily, and stop complaining that it's a gateway to gun confiscation.

If your point is simply that the quote doesn't show any concern for victims, I've got news for you: journalists pick what quotes to print, and they usually don't print everything someone says. It's naive to think that such a story reflects the totality of someone's views. But even there, you're wrong: "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

Then they should vote for it.

but couldn't in its present form."

Because they're more concerned about the threat to gun rights that they perceive in it than they are about making sure a bill that protects victims of domestic violence gets passed.

 

[A'isha]

Are you saying a law is ok because its supporters say other states have similar laws and it has worked out?

No, I'm saying that Ziggurat's link cuts both ways.

The part where you don't think the bill should be amended so that it doesn't get held up, and where you don't hold the Democrats accountable for not making such changes in order to get it passed.

So the Republicans are wanting to hold up the entire bill unless they get the defenses of gun rights that they want in it, and its the Democrats' fault for not giving it to them? Especially when the bill passed the Senate anyway?

 

[respect]

The GOP would rather see no bill at all protecting victims of domestic violence from gun violence in this fashion, than see a bill that protected victims of domestic violence from gun violence in this fashion if it meant risking the gun rights of domestic abusers.

What do you think should be done in cases of false accusations?

 

[eeyore1954]

I don't care whether the bill passes with it, or without it. They're the ones wanting to hold up the bill over it.

No, I blame them for not wanting to pass the bill because they're more worried about the gun ownership rights of domestic abusers than about the abuse.

I think an argument could just as easily be made that the democratic party is more interested in scoring political points than protecting victims of domestic abuse because they are unwilling to work on the bill for a few more days and get one that has both the best chances of being passed and protection for victims of domestic abuse.
Those evil democrats.

 

[A'isha]

What do you think should be done in cases of false accusations?

That's why a) this law only applies under the restrictive Federal standard for protective orders which the laws prohibiting gun purchases and transfers currently use, and b) this law is not a permanent restriction and only applies for the duration of the order, so once it expires or is rescinded, you can get your guns back.

 

[A'isha]

I think an argument could just as easily be made that the democratic party is more interested in scoring political points than protecting victims of domestic abuse because they are unwilling to work on the bill for a few more days and get one that has both the best chances of being passed and protection for victims of domestic abuse.
Those evil democrats.

If the Republicans want to sink this bill because they're just that concerned about making sure the gun rights of domestic abusers are protected in it, that's entirely on them and has nothing to do with the Democrats.

 

[respect]

That's why a) this law only applies under the restrictive Federal standard for protective orders which the laws prohibiting gun purchases and transfers currently use, and b) this law is not a permanent restriction and only applies for the duration of the order, so once it expires or is rescinded, you can get your guns back.

What if the falsely accused had to sell it?

 

[respect]

If the Republicans want to sink this bill because they're just that concerned about making sure the gun rights of domestic abusers are protected in it, that's entirely on them and has nothing to do with the Democrats.

Do you understand that not all accusations of domestic abuse are valid?

 

[eeyore1954]

If the Republicans want to sink this bill because they're just that concerned about making sure the gun rights of domestic abusers are protected in it, that's entirely on them and has nothing to do with the Democrats.

If the Democrats want to sink this bill because they're just that concerned about making political points rather than ensuring victims of domestic abuse are protected that's entirely on them.