HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Here’s Where the NRA Stop...

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:06 AM

 

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

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.

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

11 replies, 1329 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 11 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here’s Where the NRA Stops Cooperating on Domestic Violence Reform (Original post)
SecularMotion Jul 2015 OP
gejohnston Jul 2015 #1
SecularMotion Jul 2015 #3
blueridge3210 Jul 2015 #4
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #5
DonP Jul 2015 #6
beevul Jul 2015 #7
Lizzie Poppet Jul 2015 #8
DonP Jul 2015 #2
zipplewrath Jul 2015 #9
Shamash Jul 2015 #10
zipplewrath Jul 2015 #11

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:11 AM

1. it violates due process and takings clause

anyone who believes in due process should oppose it on principle regardless of their view on guns.
Nobody's civil liberties should be limited simply based on a claim by someone, including violent stalkers who want to make sure their victims are disarmed and spiteful spouses filing false claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:16 AM

3. That's the position of the NRA

 

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.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:19 AM

4. How about that.

 

The NRA supports due process of law. Shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:40 AM

5. If a man intended to stalk his ex but knew she was armed so he filed a bogus RO to disarm her

would you want her to be disarmed prior to due process or would you insist the police just reflexively seize her sole means of protection?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:52 AM

6. The NRA also takes the position that water is wet - I'm against it!

 

You know, you need to actually spend 30 seconds thinking about these cut and paste posts. Even if your feelings are hurt by having another GD post locked.

Just because someone you don't like says it, doesn't always make it wrong be default.

That's just stupid and lazy thinking.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:53 AM

7. I'm confused. Are you for or against due process?

 

Don't be shy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 12:12 PM

8. "poisoning the well"

 

Critical thinking: it's not just for breakfast any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:13 AM

2. Damn right! Due process can go suck it when it comes to GUNZ!

 

Let's make a list of other things we don't like, so we can shit can due process for them too.

Then, if the GOP comes to power, they can do the same thing with their pet issues, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 01:13 PM

9. Protection orders ARE due process

Protection orders, or "restraining orders" are due process. You go before a judge and they can be challenged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:29 PM

10. Not so

 

Look up "ex parte restraining order". The restraining order can be filed without you being present (or summoned), meaning that you do not get a chance to present your side before the restraining order (and in this case, gun confiscation) happens. Afterwards, you can challenge it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 03:45 PM

11. Kinda like a grand jury

Just because it is not a trial, doesn't mean it's not due process. Heck, due process doesn't even have to involve the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread