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

[SecularMotion]

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/

[gejohnston]

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.

[SecularMotion]

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.”

[blueridge3210]

4. How about that.

The NRA supports due process of law. Shocking.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

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?

[DonP]

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.

[beevul]

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

Don't be shy.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. "poisoning the well"

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

[DonP]

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?

[zipplewrath]

9. Protection orders ARE due process

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

[Shamash]

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.

[zipplewrath]

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.