Does concealed carry have a domestic violence loophole? Domestic violence and concealed carry

[SecularMotion]

Though lawmakers took an additional step to weed out convicted batterers in a concealed carry law passed by the General Assembly last year, some critics have said it leaves a loophole that could allow some violent abusers to slip under the radar.

Under the law, a person can be arrested for any offense, including domestic battery, up to five times within a seven-year period before being denied a permit to carry a firearm in public.

Those who work with domestic violence victims said that by the time someone has had multiple arrests, it may be too late. They fear that women will be placed in grave danger because domestic violence often goes unreported. When there is an arrest, charges often are dropped because the victim chooses not to pursue the case, they said.

"What the research shows is that when there are firearms in the home of a domestic violence relationship, the potential for homicide increases by 500 percent," said Dawn Dalton, executive director of the Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women's Network, citing a 2003 study published in the American Journal of Public Health. "Why would we want people who are choosing to break the law to have a firearm?"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-02/news/ct-concealed-carry-domestic-violence-20140302_1_gun-rights-firearms-ban-domestic-violence

[gejohnston]

1. no, because

conviction makes it a federal crime to possess a gun.

Those who work with domestic violence victims said that by the time someone has had multiple arrests, it may be too late. They fear that women will be placed in grave danger because domestic violence often goes unreported. When there is an arrest, charges often are dropped because the victim chooses not to pursue the case, they said.

I don't know about IL, but in Florida and many other states, if there is evidence of domestic abuse, the State will file charges and they will not be dropped. There is also the problem with false accusations by vindictive exes. Either way, a laminated card will not stop anything.
The study cited probably isn't a verified study, and can't be duplicated by another researcher using the same data. I take those studies with a grain salt. It's like the claims about second hand smoke.

The state law, however, only applies to convictions for battery, assault, aggravated assault or violating an order of protection within the last five years — not arrests that don't lead to conviction. And once an order of protection expires, the law allows the firearms ban to be lifted.

You either believe in due process, and innocent until proven guilty or you don't. The writer either doesn't or has a double standard.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. And your solution is what, exactly? To leave abused partners MORE defenseless?

Correct me if I'm wrong but domestic abusers have already shown themselves to undeterred by the law.

[oneshooter]

3. Of course!!! You have to depend on the Police, they are trained for that. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Yes, right up to the point where the victim pantomimes the choke hold she was held in

and then the cops shoot her for making a furtive gesture.

[SecularMotion]

5. Are you just programmed to spew NRA talking points

or do you actually believe the propaganda?

[gejohnston]

6. are you just programmed to spew MAIG talking points

or do you believe the propaganda?

[SecularMotion]

9. Did you reply to the wrong post?

My comment was for the other gun nut.

[rrneck]

11. Y'know, to be fair...

the way you obsessively post about guns, you're probably the biggest gun nut of all.

[gejohnston]

8. open forum,

and you replied to yourself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I'm unfamiliar with these NRA talking points you refer to. Perhaps you can cite a reference.

Perhaps you could even summon the intestinal fortitude to actually answer the point...or is this yet another uncomfortable corner you have painted yourself into?

[SecularMotion]

12. NRA talking points don't merit an answer.

The purpose of NRA propaganda is to disrupt and derail honest discussion.

[gejohnston]

13. what are these talking points?

Since none of us are on their mailing list, perhaps you can enlighten us? In my cynical mind, when someone dismisses something as "talking points" that means they don't have any evidence of a counter arguments to defend an intellectually bankrupt argument.
what is the purpose of MAIG and Brady propaganda? is simply parroting their emotional, dishonest, and demonstrably false rants as "honest discussion"? I haven't seen anything approaching honest discussion from that side. All I have seen is dishonesty, bigotry, disgusting opportunism, logical fallacies, and fake shill studies. There is nothing about them that are liberal, rational, or compassionate.

[SecularMotion]

14. The purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Campaign

is to counter the effort to weaken our nation's gun laws by the NRA.

The NRA represents the radical views of a minority of gun owners in our country. The gun lobby, with the financial support of gun manufacturers, has been able to push extreme pro-gun legislation through state legislatures and bypass the will of the voters, without opposition. Those days are over.

After the massacre at Sandy Hook and the debacle of Stand Your Ground laws, the tide has turned. Americans are uniting to pressure politicians for sane gun regulations. The Democratic Party support for strong gun regulations will win elections.

[gejohnston]

18. false talking points

is to counter the effort to weaken our nation's gun laws by the NRA.

Wayne La Pierre's pay check is more than what the NRA spends in lobbying. Are you serious? $2M a year lobbying buys congress? You should see what AARP spends.

The NRA represents the radical views of a minority of gun owners in our country. The gun lobby, with the financial support of gun manufacturers, has been able to push extreme pro-gun legislation through state legislatures and bypass the will of the voters, without opposition. Those days are over.

lie, most of the gun laws that are being overturned were lobbied for by the KKK. Missouri's 1921 law is a perfect example.

After the massacre at Sandy Hook and the debacle of Stand Your Ground laws, the tide has turned. Americans are uniting to pressure politicians for sane gun regulations. The Democratic Party support for strong gun regulations will win elections.

nonsense talking points. No, the party will not win on gun control. SYG has been law in many states for 130 years. If Georgia were to repeal its SYG law, and return to its common law self defense law, guess what? It would still be SYG. California's SYG is even older.
From your previous posts, you demonstrated that you don't have the slightest idea about SYG other than the lazy and dishonest hacks tell you. Most of those morons can't even accurately describe any of the laws, including Florida's. Why? Because they are stupid 20 somethings with degrees in creative writing blogging from Mommy's and Daddy's McMansions. They are not curious, they are not informed, they are stupid hacks that copy and paste what someone else said without doing any research. That is why I am astounded when you post OPs with their inane scribbling. IOW, I have zero respect for them or their work, left or right.
If Americans are uniting, why is the movement depended on an authoritarian billionaire and his band of mayors that either are lost to elections or to the criminal justice system? Corporations? One foundation? The gun control movement is pure astro turf of the economic and political elite. It has never been for or of the people.
What did Dunn have to do with SYG? If there was a shotgun pointed at him, he could not reasonably have retreated if he had a duty to retreat. Since there was no shotgun, it's murder. No SYG there. Zimmerman? He had no ability to retreat, even if he had a duty to retreat, had no role there either. The opposite of SYG is duty to retreat. SYG simply means no duty to retreat. In DTR states, like Wyoming and Hawaii, it only applies if:
you can
and if you can do so safely without putting yourself in equal or greater danger.

[SecularMotion]

21. Your post seethes with anger for anyone who supports gun control.

You probably shouldn't own firearms.

[gejohnston]

22. no, not anger at all.

it isn't the support for gun control. Simply annoyance of their ignorance, irrationality, dishonesty, and bigotry. The irrationality part could very well be why they project that on to others. I don't seeth.
That isn't to say that your posts seeth with dishonesty or bigotry. I don't think they do. Ignorance and less than logical reasoning, yes.

[SecularMotion]

24. Do you feel that way about the entire Democratic Party?

[center] Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation[/center]

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm

[gejohnston]

30. I fail to see how you come to that conclusion

How well do you grasp nuance? Judging from a cross section of your posts, I really have to ask.
I certainly don't think that. Jerry Brown, a gun owner himself, agrees with stricter regulations more than I do, but he certainly isn't anything I described as what I detest. Like anything else, a small minority makes everyone else look bad. The NRA has Ted Nugent, and Brady has I guess Bill Maher. There is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition. Everyone is for gun control, unless you know someone who wants to go as far as repealing NFA and the GCA and make every state like Vermont. Are there a few people of either party I feel that way about? Yeah.
My rant wasn't directed at the party, Democrats in general. Carol McCarthey ran as a Dem only after losing a Republican primary. Even then, she stayed a registered Republican for one or two of her first terms. Most of her time in congress, she voted with the GOP on every issue but guns. Given the murder of her husband, I see where she is coming from even though I think she is misguided and is certainly ignorant on all things to do with firearms. Paul Helmke is a Republican, or at least he was when he was mayor of Ft Wayne. He was dishonest.

While I disagree with the platform when it describes the "awb" as comonsense, since it did nothing and there is actually no such thing as an "assault weapon". I do support UBC. I believe any gun regulation, or any other policy, should be based on sound science and is not the place of charlatans and ideologues be it Ted Nugent or Bloomberg. Certainly not paid hacks like Watts. I have no idea what party she identifies with, and I really don't care. I have a hard time picturing a progressive being an Mostanto suit, don't you?
I totally agree that an honest open national conversation about firearms is a good thing. Problem is, La Pierre and Nugent are bat shit crazy and Bloomberg (what party does he claim this week? Notice he wanted to go after only rural Dems, not Republicans) and Brady are simply not honest and they have their share of bat shit crazy. That is a problem isn't it?
Do I blindly buy into the my side always good, other guys always bad? No. I detest MSNBC and Fox equally for the same reason. Do I think all Democrats are liberals? No. Do I think all progressive are liberals? No. Are all liberals progressives? Maybe. Certainly not classical liberals, like John Locke or Thomas Paine. Well maybe Paine, since he did support the minimum income, and was a bit of a socialist before the term existed. Suggest to a Tea Party type they read Agrarian Justice. While the Democratic party reflect my values more than any other US party, that doesn't mean I buy everything they sell.
To me, principle trumps party loyalty or ideological purity. If you are a hypocrite, misogynist, racist, religious bigot, bigot in general, dishonest, unethical, or just an asshole, I don't care what color you are or what letter you put next to your name on a ballot, I'm not your fan. Simple. I don't like MSNBC allowing misogyny and anti Mormon bigotry, and I don't like Fox's anti Muslim bigotry. Like I said, I detest them both equally. Rachel and Chris are the only ones that are half way professional. I wouldn't go hunting with either Ed Schultz or Dick Cheney. I would rather have a beer with Ed, as long as his guns stay in the safe.

[Straw Man]

33. That is one of the most ludicrous arguments I've seen in a long time.

Your post seethes with anger for anyone who supports gun control.

You probably shouldn't own firearms.

In other words, "If you don't agree with me, you must be dangerous." Is that really the best that you can do?

Laughable.

[beevul]

35. From the "no shit" files...

"The purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Campaign is to counter the effort to weaken our nation's gun laws by the NRA."

No shit? Not a one off us ever considered that might be one facet of their nasty little agenda.

Your characterization is, however, incomplete. You spin their "purpose" as benevolently soft and cuddly and makes it sound like if the nra disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, that they'd stop. But we all, you included, know that that just isn't the case, don't we. Your characterization, describes only one facet, of what is necessarily a multi-faceted set of goals, in a war of words over an issue a lot of people find important for a host of reasons.

One in which both sides are nearly diametrically opposed.

Some people would say, that considering the large amount of restrictions on guns which already exist, that the purpose of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Campaign is to limit a constitutionally protected right much farther than they think is right good or decent, which is a position that is not opposed to reducing gun violence other ways...of course none of the illegal mayors or the brady bunch, or any of the so called "gun safety/gun-violence-prevention" groups ever seem interested in those avenues. But then, like you said, their "purpose", is to counter the effort to weaken our nation's gun laws by the nra (not so much to reduce gun violence).

"The NRA represents the radical views of a minority of gun owners in our country. The gun lobby, with the financial support of gun manufacturers, has been able to push extreme pro-gun legislation through state legislatures and bypass the will of the voters, without opposition. Those days are over."

You know, right now, in the GCRKBA, theres a gun ban extremist posting in an active thread. A very active thread. And there have been others before. I note with great interest, as I'm sure many others do, that you never utter so much as a peep to them. Or about them. The gun ban extremists, I mean. The ones whos views are even less compatible with the party platform than those of the nra. You, being so active in gun threads, on and off for the last 7 years and change, and me being active in gun threads since then and even before...It begs the question in my mind, as to whether or not you're even in any position to be using the word "radical" in this discussion at all in the first place...and whether you're a gun ban extremist, like that other poster. If so, your position is even less compatible with the party platform than that of the nra is. If not, you sure seem selectively tolerant of certain positions that are less compatible with the party platform than that of the nra.

I'm sure you'll make your position known to us in a crystal clear way, given your history of interacting with posters that reply when you post an OP in this forum.

After the massacre at Sandy Hook and the debacle of Stand Your Ground laws, the tide has turned. Americans are uniting to pressure politicians for sane gun regulations. The Democratic Party support for strong gun regulations will win elections.

Riiiiight. Explain that to Colorado Democrats.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. There is no NRA talking point, there is only you copping cheap excuses to cover for the fact

you keep yammering yourself into a corner. You cite this story, which others have successfully dealt with (BTW -- it's called the Lautenberg Amendment). The premise of the story is faulty but what is more telling is: while you use the story to as a cheap ploy to diminish individual rights the only practical effect of your efforts would be to disarm victims who have already been subjected to violence at the hands of an abuser.

That's not an NRA talking point -- and you can't offer a citation to prove it is -- that is your line of argument. If your arguments embarrass you so much that you won't defend them then perhaps you should stop making embarrassing arguments -- unless you were sent by the NRA under the guise of a false flag operation to discredit the gun prohibitionists in which case, rock on.

[SecularMotion]

16. You've already shown yourself to be incapable of any honest discussion

with your accusations of wanting to disarm gun owners when faced with any suggestion of reasonable gun regulations.

Your over-the-top protestations, obfuscations, and wild accusations can't hide the fact that you have no arguments, just vacuous NRA propaganda.

[gejohnston]

19. have you read the latest from NJ?

with your accusations of wanting to disarm gun owners when faced with any suggestion of reasonable gun regulations.

Your over-the-top protestations, obfuscations, and wild accusations can't hide the fact that you have no arguments, just vacuous NRA propaganda.

That has been their stated goal since the 1970s, one step at a time. The fact that they lied to you, and the younger generation in general isn't our problem.
BTW, current regulations are quite reasonable, although you have yet to define what reasonable is. Banning .22 LR rifles or .50 cal rifles, which are legal even in the UK, that have not been used in any crime isn't reasonable.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. All I've done is asked you to clarify your self-contradicting arguments.

The Lautenberg Amendment prohibits people who have been convicted of DV from owning weapons. In fact, the law is so strict that it can get a people thrown out of the armed forces. So the premise of the article -- that domestic abusers have a legal loophole -- is fallacious.

Based on this fact what "reasonable gun regulations" would you suggest that 1) could contend with whatever issue you presume is unaddressed and 2) would not impede a victim's right to self-defense?

[SecularMotion]

23. Are you just being obtuse or do you really not understand the loophole?

The Lautenberg Amendment prohibits people who have been CONVICTED of crimes of Domestic Violence from owning firearms. The loophole allows domestic abusers with multiple arrests but no convictions to keep firearms.

"What the research shows is that when there are firearms in the home of a domestic violence relationship, the potential for homicide increases by 500 percent"

And your only solution is to add another firearm to the equation by arming the victim of domestic abuse? That's NRA insanity.

[bossy22]

25. thats not a loophole

It's the premise of our entire system- innocent until proven guilty. Arrests aren't convictions

[SecularMotion]

26. I'll bet you also deny the gun show loophole

[bossy22]

27. deflection much?

The two are not even remotely the same. So I'm taking it that you are okay with violating due process? Sounds like you and GWB have something in common

[pablo_marmol]

45. I'll bet you can't even **define** the "gun show loophole".

[gejohnston]

31. which begs the question

do you or do you not believe in due process, and innocent until proven guilty? How could there be multiple arrests but no convictions? I would have to wonder about the police in those cases. In Florida, DV is also a crime against the State. If she doesn't press charges, the State will if there is evidence. Perhaps that is something IL needs to do, and would cure both problems.

[SecularMotion]

32. Suspects are also incarcerated before being proven guilty

If you were arrested for a crime of domestic violence, would you rather be incarcerated until your trial or turn in your guns and have your freedom until the matter is resolved?

[gejohnston]

34. under federal law,

the GCA, IIRC, you can't buy or possess while under indictment. Abusive husbands tend to use more violent, and degrading, means to kill. They would also have to be barred from possessing knives, bats, and bare hands. Women generally do the shooting. The study you cited isn't peer reviewed and wasn't published in a criminology journal.
As for your other question, that may or may not be allowed under the 8A.

[beevul]

37. So, you're not in the mainstream...

So, you're not in the mainstream on guns OR on due process.


Fabulous.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. I know that DV is a serious issue. I know that abusers have demonstrated violent behavior and are

undeterred by law. I also know that rights cannot be abrogated absent due process. Case in point, Rep. Alan Grayson is currently being accused of DV by his estranged wife. If we, as a society, are to enter into the business of abrogating rights then Rep. Grayson would be subject presumptions of guilt.

You could, as long as you're on this track, demand he also be held in confinement. That too would prove an effective means of protecting victims. Yet, you do not because your bogus agenda on the backs of victims is plain for all to see.

And your only solution is to add another firearm to the equation by arming the victim of domestic abuse? That's NRA insanity.

The solution is to NOT abrogate the rights of the victim. There is no insanity, there is only you making unilateral declarations. The law has already failed to stop the DV in the first place. An RO is just as impotent and as the Castle Rock v Gonzales case proved, the police are not obligated to come to a person's aid.

I also notice your construction, "another firearm." That assumes that a majority of/all DV involves guns, a fallacious argument with no foundation. DV is, for the abuser, an on-going matter of control (hmm); as such a firearm is not ever-present. But if victims act to remove themselves from an abusive situations then your effort does nothing except keep them defenseless. Not only have you ceded physical dominance to the abuser but -- based on your construction assuming a gun is already present -- the abuser also gets to keep the gun while you proudly declare the victim shall have no access of their own.

Stop pretending you care about victims. There are real people out there desperate to survive. They don't need you stabbing them in the back because you have no interest other than your mania about the NRA (for which you still have not offered a citation).

[beevul]

36. Says the poster that makes the canned "nra talking points" responses. N/T

[Straw Man]

41. Very convenient for you.

NRA talking points don't merit an answer.

The purpose of NRA propaganda is to disrupt and derail honest discussion.

So all you have to do when confronted with a point you can't refute is to label it an "NRA talking point"? Makes "discussion" rather easy for you, doesn't it?

And you rail about "disrupting and derailing honest discussion." The irony is so rich that I'm gagging on it.

[beevul]

47. How would you know?

"The purpose of NRA propaganda is to disrupt and derail honest discussion."

One actually has to be involved in an "honest discussion" before one can make that claim, which begs the question:

How would you know?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. Oh my

That's a bit below the belt.

[Straw Man]

29. "NRA talking points" is not a counter-argument.

It's a verbal tic, a knee-jerk response. It is itself a talking point. It's what prohibitionists scream when they are unable to rebut a point, much as McCarthyites used to scream "Communist propaganda!"

[petronius]

17. Seems like 'loophole' is actually in the area of domestic violence prosecution

and prevention. If these multiply-arrested people are truly guilty, why are they walking? The solution here should not be to advocate denying a right or privilege on the basis of multiple arrests (that tack should be anathema whatever the topic), the solution ought to be figuring out how to prosecute, convict, and incarcerate the people who are a clear danger (with or without a permit to carry)...

[asadman]

39. lifetime ban on ccw is wrong

Heres my situation...I was 22 years old at a birthday party with family...things got outta hand and me and a family member had a fight...I got a domestic violence charge out of it...fast forward 15 years..have never been in trouble since that incident...been 15 years and I cannot get a ccw permit because of the dv charge from 15 years ago...I am no criminal..its not fair,now I cannot ever obtain a gun...the dv was a misdemeanor by the way not a felony...whats sad is a guy can get a felony expunged,and get a ccw and be a normal citizen..not me tho...its really not fair..it needs to be addressed...I feel that if 10-15 years pass by that you have paid your debt to society...if convicts and criminals can have a clean slate...so should I be able too...

[gopiscrap]

42. No one should have a gun

[benEzra]

44. Then don't own one.

But don't expect to compel others at gunpoint to live by *your* beliefs.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I completely agree.

One really ought to consider at least one pistol, a rifle, and a shotgun. Then you've pretty much got all bases covered.

[gopiscrap]

43. Welcome to DU

[Eleanors38]

40. The "loophole" complained of is the Fifth Amend.

If you want to repeal it, then say so.