Here’s Where the NRA Stops Cooperating on Domestic Violence Reform

[villager]

The NRA’s vigorous opposition to a domestic violence bill awaiting the governor’s signature in Delaware sheds new light on the gun-rights group’s legislative strategy when confronted with that highly sensitive issue. As the Trace reported last month, state lawmakers have been able to get the powerful lobby to play ball — up to a point. The fight in Delaware shows where that tacit cooperation ends.

SB 83, which passed both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature in June, would expand the definition of intimate partner to include persons who are in “substantive dating relationships” but do not live together. The NRA attacked the bill, which also mandates the removal of firearms and ammunition from those served with an order of protection, saying it was “designed to bypass due process to deprive gun owners of their rights in domestic abuse proceedings.”

That extension of protections to dating partners appears to be the line the NRA won’t cross. In some states, lawmakers have handed over domestic violence bills featuring gun prohibitions to NRA state representatives very early in the process and found common ground. But when bills have looked to change the definition of relationships that can be considered “domestic,” the NRA has balked.

In Louisiana, for example, someone who abuses a romantic partner they do not live with is still allowed to carry a gun. Rep. Helena Moreno, a Democrat, hoped to change that this year with a bill that expanded the state’s criteria for domestic abuse to include violence at the hands of a “household member, family member, or dating partner.” Though Moreno and her fellow lawmakers had worked with gun-rights groups to pass domestic violence legislation the year before, this year, NRA resistance proved too difficult to surmount.

<snip>

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/delaware-domestic-violence-nra/

[jonno99]

1. This is a difficult issue. On the one hand we MUST protect victims of abuse. On the other hand,

we cannot simply throw out an individuals right to due process. Where else do we deprive someone of their rights "absent any evidence that a criminal act was committed"?

If there is evidence, throw the book at the person; if there is no evidence, no corroboration - then what?

I understand there are some real monsters out there who know how to game the system - and hide their abuse. But there are also the vindictive who would simply make accusations for the purpose of legally entangling the target of their angst.

How to know which is which?

[villager]

2. Do you actually imagine those were the NRA's real objections?

[jonno99]

3. I don't know & really don't care about the NRA. I DO care about due process - don't you? nt

[villager]

4. You seem to care enough to take their side against a Democratic-authored law...

...to protect victims of abuse from greater harm.

[jonno99]

5. Not a very persuasive argument. I don't care who authored the law, but the fact

that it was written by Democrats doesn't speak very highly of those who should know better.

Due process is a fundamental right - and yet you don't seem concerned that this right might be eroded - by Democrats no less. Why is that?

Certainly protecting victims of abuse is also fundamental. But we are a system of laws - not accusations.

What rights are you willing to give up next? illegal search & seizure? your right to remain silent? I mean if it's "for the victims" you shouldn't complain - right?

[niyad]

10. so, you don't consider orders of protection (otherwise known as restraining orders)

due process? because, in order to obtain an order of protection, one must go to court, present evidence, all the usual things that occur in "due process".

[jonno99]

11. I am not a lawyer, but the following is a tiny blurb about protection orders:

An ex parte order of protection is issued by the court before the person against whom the order is directed has received notice of the petition - or had an opportunity to be heard in court. It is a temporary order.

A full order of protection is issued after a hearing on the record when the person against whom the order is directed has received notice of the proceedings and has had an opportunity to be heard.

******
If a person has had their day in court and had an order of protection filed against them, obviously they have been afforded their due process rights.

The sticky one is the ex parte process. Here a person can have a (temporary) judgement made against them - solely on the word, or accusations of the other person.

This is a tough area where I don't envy the judge one bit. If you have a scum-bag threatening to harm or kill someone but there is no "proof" - what to do? intuitively you'd want to error on the side of caution and try to ensure the (potential) victim is protected as much as possible.

But how do you account for the vindictive spouse or partner who simply wants to inflict maximum pain - and lies about the other person?

Please note: obviously if a person presents proof of abuse, harm, etc. there can be no question that a protection order is necessary. Additionally the scum-bag has forfeited his 2nd amendment rights...

[geek tragedy]

6. People can be excluded from their own homes with this kind of order. nt

[jonno99]

7. Yes. If anyone is interested, simply do a web search on 'abuse of ex parte'.

Again, there are those who SHOULD be excluded from their home because of their abusive behavior.

But violating a person's due process rights is to be avoided...

[geek tragedy]

8. they have a right to contest it right away. but safety sometimes requires more swift action nt

[niyad]

12. you mean, like the person who is being beaten up?

[jonno99]

13. Don't make the mistake in assuming that I think abuse doesn't happen.

Also, don't make the mistake in assuming that false accusations don't happen.

[niyad]

14. you seem to think false accusations happen more than actual abuse, which is simply not

the case. as you ought to know.

[jonno99]

15. "you seem to think false accusations happen more than actual abuse" Not at all.

Please don't misunderstand me. I have already stated this is a VERY difficult issue.

One of the bedrock principals of law in the US is a presumption of innocence. But how often do we lament the plight of the person who was wrongfully imprisoned - sometimes for decades?

Does it happen every day? No, but what is an acceptable percentage to wrongfully accuse, deprive of rights, and/or imprison? one percent? ten percent?

How do YOU propose to protect victims while at the same time safeguard the rights of the innocent?

[niyad]

16. this sounds like a very personal issue to you. I will say that, in all my years in domestic

violence work, I saw plenty of victims, and no false accusations.

[jonno99]

17. "I saw plenty of victims, and no false accusations." That makes perfect sense

if you are working (in a shelter?) with victims of actual violence.

I don't know how much work you've done with the family courts involving divorce and/or child-custody cases; in that setting it is not uncommon for false accusations of abuse/molestation/neglect to be made on a regular basis - with devastating results.

[niyad]

9. does this surprise anyone?