Take guns from abusers, task force says

[slackmaster]

This is from yesterday's San Diego Union-Tribune.

Domestic violence is targeted by group

By Michael Stetz
STAFF WRITER

April 3, 2004

A San Diego County task force on domestic violence wants to put some muscle behind laws that require abusers to give up their registered firearms.

People convicted of domestic violence crimes and those who have restraining orders placed against them are supposed to give up their guns.

But there is no uniform, comprehensive system in place to make sure that occurs, said Patrick McGrath, a San Diego County deputy district attorney.

<snip>

The task force studied 61 domestic violence-related fatalities that occurred between 1997 and 2003 in the county and found that guns accounted for 44 percent of the deaths....

For full copyrighted article please see http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040403/news_1m3violence.html

Well, DUH!

The need for an effective system to take guns away from people who are known to be prohibited from having them seems so obvious, yet it has never been put into place. California has had a registry of all handguns sold legally here or imported legally into the state since 1968. But what good is a gun registry if you don't use the information to match up known criminals and people under restraining orders to the guns they own legally?

:shrug:

BTW - I recently started a thread on a related subject - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x46443 - but nobody seemed very interested.

Our most important gun laws are not being enforced.

[Low Drag]

1. Seems like a no brainer

I've never understood why a judge can't issue a warrant to search a persons home when convicted of this type of crime to search for registered and unregistered guns.

Seems like a strong case of probable cause to me.

[slackmaster]

4. No search warrant is actually needed when there is an RO

If you have an RO against a former SO and are aware that the person has a firearm, all you have to do is call the cops and tell them about it. They're supposed to give high priority to people who violate terms of an RO.

I don't understand why more estranged wives don't take advantage of that power before they get shot. The decision for them must have complications I can't imagine.

[TX-RAT]

2. It affects law enforcement also.

I had to remove one of my deputy's from patrol for the same reason. All of his weapons were placed into the custody of the county until his divorce was final.

[slackmaster]

3. I know a Senior Chief in the Navy who couldn't do his job duties

Because of a domestic violence TRO. His fiancee had beaten up his former girlfriend at a bar, and he stood there and didn't do anything to stop the fight. That was plenty of grounds for a TRO in California Family Court.

The plaintiff (victim) made sure the guy's CO knew about the TRO.

[DonP]

5. Key word "convicted"

I think anyone convicted of domestic abuse should have their guns taken away at a minimum.

If there is an accusation and there is some form of corroboration they should be removed temporarily.

But I also have first hand experience with my ex accusing me of physical abuse, with no evidence or witnesses. Thankfully the sherriffs officers would not institute a RO based on her word alone and after meeting with me (and reviewing the paperwork from the three admissions she had to the psych unit) they opted to let the matter drop.

My lawyer, crusty old fart and veteran of family court, said that allegations of abuse and even child molestation and abuse are not uncommon in many divorce cases. It is used by some unscrupulous folks as one more point of leverage for negotations. "We'll drop the allegations if you agree to this or that."