What Minnesota’s New Domestic Violence Law Really Does

There has been some confusion about the “Domestic Violence Gun Confiscation” bill recently passed in the MN House of Representatives. I have been updated on exactly what the bill does and does not do by someone in the know and it is important that people understand what’s going on. In addition, Rep. Tony Cornish really is a friend to gun owners. He worked very hard to turn this bill (which originated from Felonious Mayors Against All Illegal Guns) from a complete and utter disaster into something which actually pretty well mirrors federal law [1]. Interestingly enough . . .

Even though the Dems (Democrat-Farm-Labor or DFL in Minnesota) control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion, the DFL leadership told Bloomie’s minions in no uncertain terms that legislators had to work with the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance so that GOCRA wouldn’t actively oppose the bill. This is what “grass roots” really means [2].

To start with, this bill doesn’t affect temporary restraining orders nor ex parte orders for protection. Here’s what already happens now, under current state and federal law:

1. A complainant (Carol) alleges domestic abuse by a boyfriend (Bob).

2. A judge grants Carol an ex parte (legalese for “one party”) order for protection. It basically says that Bob can’t abuse or have contact with Carol. It doesn’t include anything about guns.

3. Bob is served notice of this order.

4. Bob has an option to request a hearing to review the order. He brings his lawyer and Carol brings hers.

5. If a judge finds in that hearing with legal representation (i.e. due process), that Bob presents a significant threat of physical harm to Carol, the judge may make the order final for a period of time, commonly three years.

6. If that order includes findings of significant seriousness of a threat, the Wellstone Amendment [3] (federal law) prohibits Bob from possessing firearms.

7. Bob is responsible for getting any guns out of his possession as he has become a prohibited person for the duration of the order. Typically, he and his lawyer have planned for this eventuality and already had his guns removed. If not, there is an unwritten grace period of three days before anyone goes after Bob for possession.

If this bill becomes law, things are exactly the same, except for #7:

NEW #7. Within three days, Bob has to move his guns to a law enforcement agency, an FFL, or a third party (friend, relative, etc.). Within two days after that, the police, FFL or third party has to notify the court in writing that the move has been made.

  • The notification is sealed by the court
  • Bob retains full title to his property
  • Bob can, if he chooses, direct the third party to sell the guns on his behalf

That’s it. And again we should be thanking Tony Cornish (sending him flowers would be nice) for his Herculean efforts in taking what originally was a horrific gun-grabber’s dream of a bill into something not so bad [4].



[1] This does NOT mean that I am suddenly in favor of these laws; I still stand with L. Neil Smith: “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility,” and David Codrea: “If someone can’t be trusted with a firearm then they can’t be trusted without a custodian.”

[2] I’ve told the story before, but I love it so much I will tell it again: A court threw out the first version of MN’s “shall-issue” permit-to-carry law (based on a legislative rule technicality) a couple of days after the deadline for filing new bills had passed. Fortunately for the Lege it was more of a guideline than a deadline because MN gunnies lit up the Capitol switchboard. The representatives got so many calls that they and their staffers literally could not conduct their normal business until a new “shall-issue” bill was submitted.

[3] I was under the impression that it was the Lautenberg Amendment that barred those with an OFP, but Lautenberg’s was the one which barred DV misdemeanants from possession; the Wellstone Amendment (passed 3 years earlier in 1994) stated that subjects of an OFP are prohibited from firearm possession for duration of order.

[4] Again, see #1 above.

comments

  1. Thanks for the helpful clarification and commentary. Anyone familiar with spousal abuse, domestic abuse and battered wife syndrome will probably be more inclined to understand the wisdom, yes, necessity of this kind of law.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I most certainly do not, unless MN has somehow survived this long without a law against shooting people. Layer upon layer of overlapping laws all purporting to accomplish the same thing are ridiculous, expensive, and confusing, as well as infringing on freedom. Patting oneself on the back for solving a problem that does not exist is the height of arrogance. And I suspect there is nothing in this law to prevent a man from buying another gun the next day, and if he intends to shoot someone with it, he’s not really caring that the judge prohibited it. The only way this will “help” anyone is if the affected person is a law abiding individual who would not shoot anyone anyway. As usual for all laws pertaining to firearms ownership.

      1. Like I said, Larry, your comments betray your total lack of awareness of and familiarity with domestic violence and spousal abuse. If this law can help remove a potential lethal threat to a battered spouse, so be it.

        1. avatar Felix says:

          Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, if this law saves one life, pass it, pass it a thousand times, no matter how much is violates fundamental, natural rights.

          If someone can’t be trusted with guns, they can’t be trusted with freedom.

          If laws against assault and murder don’t do the trick, pass some new law to emphasize the point. And another. And a thousand times again. Sooner or later that will work.

        2. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

          Potential lethal threat? Here we are, back on pre-crime intervention.

          The anti gun side likes to make the point that anyone carrying a gun could suddenly become a lethal threat at any time. Do not help perpetuate that stereotype.

        3. Have you guys ever had to help a woman whose husband has routinely beaten her and pointed a gun to her head?

          Have you ever spent any time at a battered women’s shelter speaking to women who have been the victim of domestic violence?

          How about you do that for a few weeks, then come back here and we can talk about your macho BS bravado and ignorant remarks on this subject.

          Peace. Out.

        4. avatar Pascal says:

          Except it will not. All laws assume people will comply. There is no fairy tale dust or magical words that would stop a determined attacker.

          This is true story from my state. A couple in Milford CT where the wife decided she wanted a divorce. First things she did was a get restraining order regardless of the fact that the husband had no prior abuse record and she also locked him out his home and all of his things. The husband was a gun owner and all his guns where taken away. Pissed off, the husband returned to their home one evening and had somehow surprised his wife and knocked her unconscious. While she was knocked out, he went purchased some rope and gear and made a noose. He put the rope around her neck an hoisted her naked body up to the foyer ceiling where she hung and died. He then went into the back yard and to tree he loved to hang out under and made a noose for himself, climbed a step ladder and kicked it over hanging himself.

          That is just one example, and I am sure there are many tragic more.

          The restraining order did NOTHING. In many cases it does NOTHING. I am sure many other gun instructors get calls all the time from women who figure out that the restraining order is not worth any more than the paper it is printed on, that if you want to protect yourself the courts and the police are of zero help and no, you cannot get a gun right away.

          Although I cannot find the story link right now, there is also a story of a wife getting a restraining order on the husband so his guns can be taken away, only to use her own gun to then kill her husband.

          Laws cannot stop crimes of passion, the criminally mentally ill nor moral issues. More laws for the sake of more laws helps nobody including the victims.

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          Your comments betray your total lack of logic and ability to reason. I agree with larryintx. The bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except making people “feel” safe and warm and fuzzy.

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          Have you guys ever had to help a woman whose husband has routinely beaten her and pointed a gun to her head?

          Sounds like she should have served him with divorce papers, followed by moving out followed by procuring a firearm and getting trained in firearm use and safety.

          Your “law” that is going to miraculously “protect” the abused spouse does nothing.

        7. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Paul T. McCain: I have much more experience than you’ve droned on about here and I tell you that your opinion is all wet. There are those who game the DV system for revenge, money, and custody advantage. There are those who legitimately go through the system as well. In all of these cases, stripping rights from anyone is not the answer. It’s obscene, immoral, and doesn’t really work. Among other things, encouraging victims to arm themselves and learn how to be responsible for their own safety has the best potential towards positive outcomes for real victims and society in general.

        8. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          How does this law do any such thing, when all someone has to do is just go buy another gun off the street? Or just take one of his existing guns to his ex’s house and murder her, instead of turning the guns over to a third party for safekeeping?

          This law is just more “Do something!” nonsense that won’t prevent any crime, but continues to allow one bitter ex to thwart and frustrate under cover of legal authority the God-given rights of another. It’s just more feel good fail masquerading as sound public policy.

        9. John in Ohio, I’ll just raise the old BS flag here.

          Your comments betray the fact you have little to no experience working with abused and battered women who have been beaten to within an inch of their life in some cases with guns held to their heads, or pointed at them, or even shot.

        10. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Paul T. McCain, figure a way that I can prove my bonafides to you in person without giving up my personal information online and you’ll have to eat crow. I have a lot of experience with DV and was subjected to it myself. Domestic violence perpetrated upon my body cost me my medical career. Someone beating in the back of your skull with a framing hammer can do that… it can have long lasting effects.

          Put that in your statist pipe and smoke it. You’re wrong and you’ve stepped right back into your own feces.

        11. avatar Jeremy says:

          Tell me that was all tongue in cheek. (and I don’t mean up Bloomies butt crack either) Are you that seriously deranged that you actually believe the crap you posted?

        12. John in Ohio, you can easily contact me, because, I use my real name and link to my YouTube channel.

          So, looking forward to your experience working with women who are victims of domestic violence.

        13. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Paul T. McCain, is that you connected to the Missouri Synod?

        14. avatar Anonymous says:

          Paul uses his real name and has a youtube channel so he has…. Wait for it…. CREDIBILITY!! Look at that. Believe what Paul says (regardless of how ridiculous the logic or reasoning is behind it) because he uses his real name and has credibility.

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/bruce-krafft/minnesotas/#comment-1746597

        15. avatar Hannibal says:

          You either agree with Paul that it’s worth it to take away rights to save just one life(!) or you don’t know what you’re talking about because he’s seen things. Nice rhetorical trick.

          I’ve seen things too. I’ve seen cases of DV that were completely legit and made me think the victim might get killed. I’ve also seen cases where an argument was blown out of proportion by someone trying to get a leg up on an ex or soon-to-be ex. And most importantly I’ve seen that the courts have a lot of trouble telling the difference- or caring- when it comes to protective orders.

        16. A long time ago, my wife and I gave shelter to a battered woman. The woman’s boyfriend showed up at the house with a pointed tool and flattened two tires on her car. I was inside with a loaded .357. He never entered the house, maybe because he knew I had guns and was a shooter.

          Six months later, the woman was back with the boyfriend, and they got married.

          I swore off of “helping” women in domestic situations. Very often it is a dance of mutual destruction, where both parties are at fault.

      2. avatar Jim says:

        Larry, after reading Bruce’s dissection, I’m inclined to think that this is actually really a sheep in wolves’ clothing instead of the opposite. it *sounds* like the way this was drafted (according to this article anyway) is that it could have been a confiscation bill, but got turned into a protection of gun owners’ rights and property as much as was possible without superseding federal law – which it can’t anyway.

        the fact that notification instead of confiscation is written in there means that the 3rd party is actually acting on both the order of the court and in good faith with the respondent, as it removes or alleviates the burden of having to show proof or movement, and keeps the potential for 4th amendment trampling to a minimum. the fact that the owner retains rights over the property means that when the firearms are relinquished back to the owner, there will be transfer paperwork of some sort, which will be a pain to deal with at the sunset of the order, but will at least help establish a paper trail later. which again, could guard against 4th amendment violations, and shows the courts that the respondent did not violate the order prior to it’s sunset.

        the other nice thing that I like about this is that it SOUNDS tough, which keeps the antis at bay because they’ll “feel” like they accomplished something, but it doesn’t go far into where they probably thought it was headed when they thought this little idiocy up.

        really, IF it’s done correctly, this looks out for the respondent’s rights pretty well….pretty slick.

      3. avatar slicer87 says:

        To Paul T. McCain, your comments betray your total lack of awareness of and familiarity with domestic violence and spousal abuse. 50% of domestic violence is reciprocal, 53% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed against men, 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal domestic violence are women, only 15% of all DV cases involve a violent man and an non-violent woman.

        Englishwoman Erin Pizzey, who founded the world’s first shelter for battered wives in 1971, she knew from her own experience (her wealthy, socially elite parents were mutually abusive, and her mother violent to Erin), and from what the women in her shelter told her, that most partner violence is reciprocal. Erin holding women responsible for their violence was so at odds with the received wisdom of the movement’s activists that, for her whistle-blowing pains, Pizzey’s dog was killed and her entire family received death threats. Undaunted, she pursued her equal-responsibility crusade in the United States for many years in a fusillade of articles and books.

        Another outlier, University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton, is acknowledged by his peers as a world expert on IPV. He has proven, over and over again — most recently in his definitive 2006 book, Rethinking Domestic Violence — that the tendency to violence in intimate relationships is bilateral and rooted in individual dysfunction: Men and women with personality disorders and/or family histories of violence are equally likely to be violent themselves, or seek violent partners. In other words violent people are attracted to other violent people.

        Instead, pseudo-science absolving women of violent impulses, delivered on demand to interest groups by the same tiny, incestuous coterie of ideologically sympathetic professionals, is routinely applied in training police, family law judges, social workers, and women’s shelter personnel.

        A lazy, politically correct media dutifully spreads the party line by reporting uncritically on bogus selection-biased “studies” by non-accredited stakeholders, who extrapolate to the general population data that are based on testimonials from men in court-mandated therapy programs or women in shelters. Sound familer?

        Sorry Paul, you are just a clueless and brainwashed white knight.

    2. avatar ST says:

      The ONLY thing domestic violence regulations accomplish is funnel money into the pockets of attorneys and the court system.

      A person determined to assault their spouse will do so no matter what the law says.Observe the case in Wisconsin of the guy who walked into his spouse’s salon and shot the place up despite being subject to a RO. Considering the layered state and Federal regs on DV, you’d think we’d have zero instances of it by now if the laws worked. They don’t.

      Instead DV regulations are great tools for women of low moral character to use to extort their spouse. Ive seen it happen to a friend of mine.His wife made it clear she’d ruin his military career with one phone call if he ever stepped “out of line”. He can’t divorce her either, because then she’d DEFINITELY file a bogus restraining order and have him locked up just for kicks.

      For a society which openly claims to be “gender progressive” we have some extremely sexist legislation on the books. This is one of them.

      1. ST, that is pure bovine excrement.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          Paul, Thank you for your very intelligent comment – it contributed greatly to the conversation while refuting ST’s comment with facts, logical arguments, and supporting evidence.

        2. And, coming from “Anonymous” the comment is pretty much worthless. People who don’t have the guts to even use a real name in a serious discussion have zero credibility.

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          It’s not Paul, I’ve seen it happen too. Your just refusing to see that some women DO, do these things to men. Some PEOPLE are just conniving, evil, socialpaths, with their goal to control the lives of others, men, and women. Women typically cant do it through force, so they use other means.

          And if this is happening to the originally commenters t friend, he is not helpless, he needs to secretly “sell” his guns to a friend, and maybe all his assets, get a lawyer, and NOTIFY HIS CHAIN OF COMMAND ASAP!

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          What does my name or my identity have anything to do with the arguments of a debate? Do you you have any logical or meaningful statements of any merit to offer? It seems not.

        5. avatar Jeremy says:

          Paul you are the one full of crap. Why don’t you just fess up to being a libtard? Does Bloomie pay you for your garbage? does he pay by the comment or by the letter? The best way to stop DV is to teach your daughters to shoot. that way they won’t become a victim as easily.
          Oh, and teach your sons as well, there are more cases of abusive women then there are men. They just get reported less often.

        6. I’m trying to keep up with things to add to my resume:

          Statist.
          Paid by Bloomberg.
          Paid by TTAG to troll.
          Paid to post comments.
          An anti in disguise.

          Anything else?

          : )

          When all else fails, resort to tin foil hat conspiracy theories and ad hominem rhetorical devices.

        7. avatar Jeremy says:

          http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-domestic-violence/

          40% of the victims of severe, physical domestic violence are men.. Men who report it are ridiculed often by law enforcement.
          Although there has been an increase in the number of fatal domestic violence incidents against women, men are more likely to be victims of attacks with a deadly weapon. According to one study, 63% of males as opposed to 15% of females had a deadly weapon used against them in a fight with an intimate partner.
          What is worse than the statistics, however, is the fact that there has been little research in the area of domestic abuse against men because neither the Justice Department nor any other agencies will fund such research. Because they refuse to do the research, people are able to perpetuate such myths as women are only violent when defending themselves, or that men could more easily leave a violent relationship.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Since you’re asking, Paul T. McCain… add disgusting socialist scum. 🙂

        9. Jeremy, that’s not a very reliable site for stats, by the way.

          Check these sources out:

          1 Tjaden, Patricia & Thoennes, Nancy. National Institute of Justice and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, “Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey,” (2000).
          2 Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA.
          3 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.
          4 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization, 2005,” September 2006.
          5 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Intimate Partner Violence in the United States,” December 2006.
          6 Frieze, I.H., Browne, A. (1989) Violence in Marriage. In L.E. Ohlin & M. H. Tonry (eds.) Family Violence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
          7 Break the Cycle. (2006). Startling Statistics. http://www.breakthecycle.org/html%20files/I_4a_startstatis.htm.
          8 Strauss, Gelles, and Smith, “Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence” in 8,145 Families. Transaction Publishers (1990).
          9 Edelson, J.L. (1999). “The Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Woman Battering.” Violence Against Women. 5:134-154.
          10 U.S. Department of Justice, “Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women,” November 1998.
          11 Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA.
          12 Campbell, et al. (2003). “Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide.” Intimate Partner Homicide, NIJ Journal, 250, 14-19. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
          13 Tjaden, Patricia & Thoennes, Nancy. (1998). “Stalking in America.” National Institute for Justice.
          14 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports “Crime in the United States, 2000,” (2001).
          15 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Intimate Partner Violence in the United States,” December 2006.
          16 Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA.
          Tjaden, Patricia & Thoennes, Nancy.
          17 Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. 2003. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA.
          18 The Cost of Violence in the United States. 2007. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA.
          19 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Family Violence Statistics,” June 2005.
          20 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization,” 2003.
          For more information, please visit our website at http://www.ncadv.org.

        10. avatar Jeremy says:

          Paul, as a male victim of domestic assault, I am more inclined to believe them then you or your cherry picked data. I have dealt with many men who are victims of abuse, and victims of women who choose to make false claims. Some years back, a tenant of mine assisted me to defer rent. I picked him up one morning was in his apartment and said hi to his wife. He had an allergic reaction that sent him to the hospital. About eight that evening, I went by their apartment to let her know he was going to be there over night. When she answered the door, she had a black eye, and some bruises. I asked what had happened, and she said that “Fred had smacked her around after work. Funny, he was in the hospital almost all day. She had filed a report with the police, and the cops were looking for him.
          Did she get charged? No! she got rent assistance from section 8. They bumped her to the front of the line. She got a nice new apartment that she trashed. She also got nine months of benefits for victims of abuse.
          I was sitting by his side at the court house when the district attorney walked up and offered him a plea deal on the charges. They never dropped them. He was found not guilty luckily.

        11. Jeremy, yes, we can all cite anecdotal evidence and specific examples of men being domestically abused; however, the fact is that the vast majority of domestic abuse situations involve women being abused.

      2. avatar ropingdown says:

        If this situation really exists for your friend, there certainly is a process to free him from the threats. He should in careful secrecy retain a skilled attorney, prepare and file affidavits as to the threats, and file for divorce after carefully laying the groundwork. Failing to proceed, given the nature of the purported threats, would say something about your friend.

        1. avatar Jim says:

          excellent advice, ropingdown. hooah! addendum to add:

          and he should NOT count military JAG as being any part whatsoever of that competent legal professional’s job. at all, period. unless he is a masochist.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I’ve seen an obvious gender bias in these programs in Ohio. They try to flat out turn away men who were truly suffering at the hands of a female domestic abuser. Everything I’ve seen is geared towards women only. Some of the offices I’ve seen are pure man-haters. It’s not about DV to them. It’s about getting even with men. The unfortunate result is that real victims of domestic violence suffer; men, women, and children.

        1. Gender bias?

          You mean because women are far more often the victims of domestic violence than men are?

          OK, sure, you can call that “bias.”

          From the Department of Justice

          Domestic Violence Statistics Data
          Percent of women who have experienced domestic violence 25%
          Estimated number of domestic violence incidents per year 960,000
          Victims of Domestic Violence
          Women 85%
          Men 15%
          Women ages 20-24 are at the greatest risk
          On average, 3 females and 1 male are murdered by their partner each day
          The health costs of domestic violence yearly $5.8 Billion
          Percent of female high school students who reported being physically or sexually abused by a dating partner 20%
          Percent of teens who reported threats from their boyfriend or girlfriend to harm them or themselves to avoid a breakup. 14%
          Number of children who witness domestic violence annually 6 Million +
          Number of women who are stalked by an intimate partner annually 503,485
          Percent of domestic crimes reported to police 25%

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          (I’m only speaking of Ohio because that is the only place that I’ve had experience.)

          In the real world, the bias is obvious. You can see it in the Ohio DV advocate offices and you can easily find it in the courts. Come here and check it out. If you cannot see it after that then you are blind & deaf or are a liar. In these offices they routinely discourage men from seeking help. They have programs that are for women only with no alternatives for men. It would be interesting to look at statistics on how many men are refused DV restraining orders compared to women and how many of those men’s orders are ended at the first hearing.

          I believe that they are trending away from using women in their advocacy group names but I know at one time it was even clear by the name that women were the subject of protection and help, not men who have suffered DV.

        3. John in Ohio:

          Still waiting to hear from you.

          Also, are the statistics provided by the DOJ different in Ohio?

        4. avatar Jeremy says:

          John in Ohio, I lived with an abusive spouse for many years. Most of the abuse was mental, but several times she physically assaulted me and I had proof including witnesses. After we split and she filed divorce, I obtained a restraining order. She violated it and ran me over with her vehicle. The responding police refused to take a report from me, and threatened to charge me instead. After the divorce was final, she continued to stalk me for another eight years. Again,even with proof, the cops did NOTHING!
          I presently rent rooms in my house. I have a new divorcee for a room mate. Last night we awoke to a fire under the front porch. The only thing that kept it from being a disaster is that I resided the house with cement board and got rid of the vinyl. As near as we can tell, it was likely the exspouse.

        5. avatar slicer87 says:

          Yes Paul there is a gender bias.

          50% of domestic violence is reciprocal, 53% of nonreciprocal domestic violence is committed against men, 71% of the instigators in nonreciprocal domestic violence are women, only 15% of all DV cases involve a violent man and an non-violent woman.

          Stop drinking the femnazi kool-aid.

    3. avatar Accur81 says:

      Anyone with a vicious, psychotic ex-wife will realize that this law can and will be used as revenge against a responsible gun owning ex-husband. I’ve got guys at my office who almost fell victim to this, and they are good cops. One ex-wife developed a cocaine habit that was so severe that she died of an overdose. Of course, she managed to spend a whole lot of her ex-husband’s money before that happened. I offered that ex-husband a room and roof for a few months to help him get back on his feet. Thankfully his new wife is a sweetheart.

      I think I’d rather deal with an honest murderer than a scorned ex-wife looking for money and revenge, and I’ve had dealings with both.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1K

        I was thinking similar. Well articulated, Accur81.

    4. avatar Wes says:

      So, youre saying that if the abuser is willing to harm or kill their SO (against the law, btw) that this one additional law will save them… from someone who is already willing to break the law

  2. avatar Tom says:

    Now where is the right of trial by jury? In cases like this where a party faces loss of their property or rights, they are entitled to a jury. That is my big issue with these laws.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      It is whatever the judge “feels” at that time. Your 2nd amendment rights are up for debate at the whim of one man (the judge) and how he is feeling at the time of your hearing. – and it is supported by Paul McCain and the will of Minnesota voters. This law really doesn’t prevent anything. The Abusive husband could still obtain a firearm if he wanted and could eliminate his spouse if he so chooses. It only affects the husband that would not do so – as he would follow the law.

      1. avatar slicer87 says:

        Considering that in reality only 15% of all DV cases involve a violent man and an non-violent woman. This whole law is pure garbage and a fusion of femnazi and gun grabber BS.

  3. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Thanks I was wondering what happened with all that.

    And bravo to the integrity of TTAG, if this had been an anti website they wouldn’t have changed a thing, because they don’t care about facts, just enraging people.

    1. Precisely well said, sir and why so many of us keep coming back to TTAG for information on all aspects of “the truth about guns.”

      1. avatar ST says:

        What part of that includes “bovine excrement”?

        Just because a concept doesn’t fit into your preconceptions doesn’t make it any less true. Women lie, just like men do.
        Women cheat, just like men do.
        Women steal, just like men do.

        As such, the concept that men should be presumed guilty in any DV situation is statism run amok. Oh, but you’ll doubtlessly say that women are physically weaker, so the law must compensate.

        Tell that to the family of a certain USAF Staff Sergeant I knew. They got to bury their son because, after two tours in Iraq, his wifes response to ” I want to a divorce ” was to blow her husband’s brains out. I shook his hand Friday afternoon at the base , and three hours later he’s dead.

        I find it troubling that a perceptive gun owner such as yourself is resorting to ad homienem and emotional appeals to justify gun control. You should too.

        1. avatar New Continental Army says:

          I think you mean to post that on the above post?

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          It’s ok. I took his attention off ST and now he is performing his emotional “name calling” with me above. He doesn’t want to debate the points in question because he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

        3. avatar slicer87 says:

          He is throwing fellow men under the bus in hopes to satisfy the antis.

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Yeah that’s what drove me to this site, they really do make every effort to make the truth known, whether its law like this or a gun review, and the gun reviews are the best hands down.

  4. avatar ST says:

    “2. A judge grants Carol an ex parte (legalese for “one party”) order for protection. It basically says that Bob can’t abuse or have contact with Carol. It doesn’t include anything about guns.”

    And here we come to a problem. The judge doesn’t HAVE to say anything about guns in the restraining order. Bob is still screwed, because as far as FEDERAL law is concerned (via the Lautenberg Act) , the moment someone becomes named in a restraining order their gun ownership privileges are suspended until the order is lifted or expired. That is why some states like California will send the 5-0 to your door with a hand truck for your gun safe the moment an RO is filed for any reason.

    Yes, I used the word “privilege” intentionally, because that’s what we have in America on a practical level regarding firearms. If I piss off an ex wife and get hit with a temp RO, I don’t suddenly have my right to free speech suspended . Nor is my right to avoid self incrimination suddenly cancelled.

  5. avatar WI Patriot says:

    WI enacted a law very similar to this just before Minnesota adopted theirs…

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee reverend I had a wife (long time Ex) who accused me of all kinds of crap that NEVER happened. Women( and kids) DO LIE.

    1. Yes, well, that’s life, isn’t it?

      How many times have you had to deal with a battered woman, a victim of horrendous domestic violence? With women terrified in their own homes? Bruised and beaten down, physically and psychologically?

      You got a raw deal? That’s a shame.

      It’s not all about you, pal.

      1. avatar ST says:

        How many times have you seen a man driven to the brink of suicide because his wife lied to the cops, the kids, the family, and the media with a false complaint of domestic impropriety -with the resulting damage to his reputation, his career, his integrity and his peace of mind?

        Too many times ive seen men in uniform come home from a deployment to an empty house, a cleaned out bank account, and a DV order filed three states away.

        Its not all about her , either.

        1. And so inconveniencing a man who may be wrongly accused and removing firearms from him is somehow worse than risking the life of a woman who is regularly having the crap beaten out of her, threatened often with death?

          Think about it.

          Everyone can tell horror stories about being wrongly accused, but I know from cold, hard reality and more personal experience working with these situations than I would have ever thought possible, that this is a very real issue and the law here is wise.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          And so inconveniencing a man who may be wrongly accused and removing firearms from him is somehow worse than risking the life of a woman who is regularly having the crap beaten out of her, threatened often with death?

          It’s more than “inconveniencing” someone and YES, what happens more often than not these days is worse. To strip someone of property and rights based upon flimsy allegations and without due process is the antithesis of what our government was created to do. What you’ve been spewing in these comments is immoral and repugnant.

        3. avatar Hannibal says:

          “And so inconveniencing a man who may be wrongly accused and removing firearms from him is somehow worse than risking the life of a woman”

          If someone put you up against an MDA mouthpiece I don’t think anyone could tell the difference.

      2. avatar Paul G. says:

        Denying one group of their due process as a means of supposedly empowering another group is hardly legitimate.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Well in 50yr I’ve never known a “battered” woman, one who I suspected to be, or who I thought would be, If I had I’ve have addressed such. I’ve therefore concluded, like EVERY idiotic hobbyhorse agenda of the libtard progressive left, that 99% of their “crisis” if hyperventilating nonsense.

        Thanks for sharing.

        pretty well mirrors federal law Then it either is 1) unneeded or 2) the federal law, certainly if passed in the last 25yr, is likely to be UnConstitutional BS (footnote – if it has Frank Lautenberg as a sponsor it automatically is BS).

      4. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        Do you hear yourself? You’re doing exactly what the antis do. Attempting to appeal to emotion rather than use logic and facts. I feel bad for you, I really do.

      5. avatar Anonymous says:

        I can’t believe you support this. Do we have 2nd amendment rights or do we not?

        Maybe we should ban guns nationwide because there are domestic abusers out there. Have to protect the battered women. The anti’s are for the innocent children and Paul is for the battered women.

        Why didn’t you arm and train those battered women Paul?

      6. avatar Jeremy says:

        Paul,you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You are too blinded by your own sanctimony to see it. How many men in your flock have been victims of an abusive woman? Did you treat them the same way? Dolt.

  7. avatar Jan Andersen says:

    Seems some people want it both ways. After every mass shooting when the gun grabbers blame the guns, we point to the individual who should have been prevented from having guns.

    This law is about the individual who presents a significant threat of physical harm, based on prior acts or statements.

    The arguments against this is also the argument in favor of Lanza keeping any of his guns, after all he hadn’t done anything yet, and he hadn’t threatened anyone. (Yes, he stole them but I am making a point). Is there room for judicial error, sure, but that is part of the system.

    1. avatar Jim says:

      Jan,

      “This law is about the individual who presents a significant threat of physical harm, based on prior acts or statements.”

      THIS single statement is the problem, and the line of demarcation on this issue, and both sides have it somewhat right. the ultimate burden of proof is not what we want to see, but at the same time, most divorce law in this country (and I am including TPOs, ROs, FPOs, etc as part of divorce law) is rather heavily weighted in the complainant’s (usually a woman) favor. ANYTIME there are children involved, UNLESS the woman is CURRENTLY 10-13d in a psych ward while detoxing off of dangerous drugs while recovering from her latest DUI while ignoring her children at home and showing a pattern of neglect several years long while being judged mentally incompetent to take care of her kids by a headshrinker with 2 other second opinions and certified and notarized by 4 different 9th circuit court judges who lean farther left than Justice Stephens, then the man is about to be shafted.

      what’s worse, they know this. and a mad woman with a little working knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing.

      there really is not a good party to determine when “enough is enough” without somebody being somehow victimized. it’s an ugly section of law in which everybody involved is going to be shat upon to some extent, however large or small.

      I’ve served several orders on the job, and with a few notable exceptions, it didn’t sit well with me. the really notable ones I’ve slapped cuffs on, and truth be told, most of those guys were usually the sort that wind up with violent felonies sooner or later. but the vast majority of guys would never dream, well, let me fix that (apologies Robert F), would never ACT on their dreams (better?) and do anything to harm the women.

      side note: most of my colleagues at my agency agree after a while of dealing with it:

      *DV is a really BAD area of law to touch legally
      *women are more often than not the instigators of their own violence, and often think about how to entrap the men, and know exactly which buttons to push to provoke the desired response
      *men are the more violent and think less before they REact.
      *the women more often than not, GO BACK TO HIM AFTERWARDS. and sometimes even try to trick him into violating his order……even to the point of being the ones initiating contact repeatedly. and then reporting it as a violation.
      *men more often than not are quicker to forgive and for some reason stop thinking. I guess that’s the end result of having two heads but only enough blood to operate one at a time.

      the courts are not in a position to be the perfect arbiters of family law. that is a given. the po-po is not in a position to argue with either the courts, the complainant, the respondent, or any witnesses. they literally are stuck in the middle. the legislative branch is usually not interested in moving until the unthinkable happens. the best way to get a better decision is unfortunately to have someone go through the process and appeal all the way to the supreme court if need be….and that’s not a win for anybody anymore by that point. sucks all the way around.

      again, it could have been worse. far, far worse.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      This law is about the individual who presents a significant threat of physical harm, based on prior acts or statements.

      No, these cases are often based upon sheer allegation. Laws like this are invoked prior to due process. Liberty involves risk and responsibilities. Those cannot be successfully removed from the equation. When a nation tries to have something that resembles liberty without individual responsibility and risk, they end up with a system of privileges and a defunct nanny state. We have that now and it doesn’t work!

      1. avatar Jan Andersen says:

        A hearing in front of a judge with your lawyer present is due process. Of course there will be cases where the decision is unfair towards the gun owner, but if the only standard is prior violent acts, most of the mass shooters could not have been stopped in advance either. You can’t have it both ways.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It can be merely lip service to due process. There’s money to be made and there’s a whole lot of Paul T. McCains in the business. These laws are invoked before any proper finding of guilt. That is certainly NOT due process.

          I’ve seen it. If a man is standing before some of these courts, it’s a rubber stamp event. Try to prove a negative. It’s practically impossible in court. These are passed off as akin to administrative hearings but they have criminal penalty like results. Depriving someone of rights must have a much higher threshold than what goes on.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You can’t have it both ways.

          Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t want it both ways. I accept the risks of being free.

        3. avatar Yossarian says:

          “But if the only standard is prior violent acts, most of the mass shooters could not have been stopped in advance either. You can’t have it both ways.”

          Yes, you can have it both ways – Stop taking guns away from people who have “committed pre-crime” and put guns into the hands of those soft targets that would be victims. That’s what I call “having it both ways”.

          And anyone who is all for disarming a man (or woman) because they previously chose to bed-down with a characterless, false accuser: You are not a lover of freedom nor humanity.

          Or, as Sam Adams said: “Go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

  8. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

    Paul, it seems that you are more than willing to decide which parties rights are more important than the others. It seems you have combined playing God (protecting battered women is more important than protecting wrongly accused men) with allowing emotion to win out over logic.

    An experiment if you please.

    “If it saves one child’s life to ban guns it is worth it”
    “If it saves one woman’s life to ban guns from wrongly accused men it is worth it”

    See what I did there.

    1. See my comment above “Sheepdog”

      Go spend a few weeks at a shelter for victims of domestic violence and then get back to me.

      For a “sheep dog” you sure seem willing to look the other way.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I grew up surrounded by domestic violence. I’ve spent much of my adult life around it. I’ve treated victims of domestic violence. I’ve also counseled some. And, I’ve been subjected to it. There’s my experience and I strongly disagree with you on much of what you’ve written. Have any more appeals to authority in your disinformation arsenal?

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Why didn’t you help them Paul?
        You should have given her some advice and firearms training. Shame on you.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/bruce-krafft/minnesotas/#comment-1746557

        1. Well, if intervening in a few situations where I’ve had to unload revolvers and semi-autos and then call the cops while trying to protect a battered woman counts…yes.

          You?

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Well, if intervening in a few situations where I’ve had to unload revolvers and semi-autos and then call the cops while trying to protect a battered woman counts…yes.

          You?

          I don’t support legislation that allows battered men (or men claiming to be battered) to take the gun rights of a woman by merely having a restraining order issued against them.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

          @Paul T. McCain: I tried to call the switchboard to get in touch with you and it is closed on Saturday. But, you know what? I don’t have to prove anything to you because you are appealing to authority (which I fell into as well) in order to bolster your incorrect stand on the issue. I’m not playing the game. Bravo to you for *almost* getting me to play. My experiences are as I stated them. There’s no need to attempt to prove anything because it won’t change your thinking. I don’t believe for a minute that you don’t know that for which you argue. Indeed, you argue for tyranny and against Liberty. You are beyond contempt.

          Your argument falls when one considers the nature of rights. All of this emotional bovine excrement you’re slinging in comments doesn’t change that. People like you, Paul T. McCain are a big problem in this nation. You want a nanny state. You want privileges in place of rights. You are loathsome among a free people. You apparently don’t understand what it takes to be free individuals. It takes courage to accept risk. It takes individual responsibility. You’re not arguing for any of that. You’re arguing for a nanny state filled with privileges. I pity you and your kind.

        4. Like I said, John in Ohio, I’m easily contacted, you know it and I know it. Just a quick email away.

          I think if you would actually stop calling names for a moment, respond as you said you would, I’d be much more persuaded you in fact are in command of facts on these issues and do have significant experience working with victims of domestic violence.

          I’ll make it even easier for you: ptmccain1580@gmail.com

          Looking forward to hearing from you.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Paul T. McCain… I wanted to call you since I couldn’t meet you in person due to great distance. I tried the switchboard but it is closed on Saturday. As I have posted, you almost sucked me in. Your opinions won’t change with proof, that’s obvious. Your making these assertions and trying to back them up with an appeal to authority. That doesn’t make them any less incorrect.

          Now, you’re a minister, right? State on here that I’m a liar. Bear that false witness without any proof, Paul T. McCain. Also, enjoy proving a negative… just like many have to attempt in Ohio hearings on protection orders. 😉

          I tried to call you but now I think it’s wiser not to. It won’t change a blessed thing. I won’t be responding to any more comments of this particular nature by you. Those who know me that read TTAG know the truth of the matter.

          You work the rules for radicals very well, comrade. 😉

        6. OK, John, I see I called your bluff.

          And, yes, I’ll add to my resume, let’s see now…

          Radical.
          Communist.
          Scumbag.
          Materialist.

          Anything else?

          Oh, and it is “bare” false witness, unless you meant this:

          http://undead-llama.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011-09-11-bearWitness.gif

        7. avatar Jeremy says:

          Paul is now proven a fraud. Its bear , not bare. Better hit edit, quick!

      3. avatar Another Robert says:

        I actually spent a couple of years representing abused spouses–that is, wives–and regularly went to the women’s shelter (yes, that’s what they called it then). The only shots that were ever fired, oddly enough, were by one of the abused wives–shot her hubby in the belly with a 20-gauge. Birdshot, fortunately for him, his belly was padded enough that he lived to tell the tale. That aside, I see the argument that someone who would not be deterred by the laws against assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc would likely not be deterred by a civil order carrying no criminal consequences for violation in and of itself. Kind of like saying a person who would not be deterred by laws against murder would not likely be deterred by the fact that his having a gun to do it with would be illegal, no? Protective orders and such work pretty much like other laws, they function to “prevent” law-abiding people from doing things, and to give a basis for punishing law breakers.

      4. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Paul T. McCain… That’s socialist scumbag.

      5. avatar RJ says:

        This guy Paul is a troll. Working at a DV shelter doesn’t give you any more standing to comment on this issue.

        A friend has a DV charge on his record – attempted criminal mischief…attempted destruction of property worth less than $250. He broke his own property during an argument with his girlfriend. Now he is barred for life because of Lautenberg amendment.

        Whose life is that saving Paul?

        1. This conversation sounds like this to me at this point:

      6. avatar RJ says:

        Instead of answering me, you post a stupid video clip?

  9. avatar 505markf says:

    This is one of those tough issues. There are certainly people out there that either through word or action express menace to another. It happens every day. Some of those people – perhaps a small fraction – may actually act on their expressed menace. The threat may be real or not. So an order of protection is issued. Granted, the first person can lie. It also happens every day.

    So what is our response to this as a society? We assume the worst and seek to reduce the likelihood of the worst happening by forbidding the menace from possessing firearms. I get it, but it does feel – no other way to say it – icky to me. Innocent until proven guilty is not just a principle but is the bedrock foundation (albeit a sometimes abused one) of criminal law.

    I don’t think there will ever be a good solution to this one, folks, but my discomfort is this: passing laws to prevent crime is a dangerous, slippery slope. We used to punish people only for breaking laws; said punishment being a potential deterrent from others doing the same. Now, however, there are many laws on the books now that can punish someone for simply planning to break the law. So we move gently yet inexorably into crime prevention not because we rigorously prosecute and punish people who harm others, but also because we do the same for people who may only intend or express that they will harm others. Feels icky. Wish I had a better word than that, but it’s Saturday and I don’t get paid to think big thoughts on the weekend.

    1. Do we ever take the keys out of the hands of a drunk driver?

      Yes.

      Case closed.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        no.

        case re-opened and then re-closed.

        we take their driving privileges away, but then again, about a bazillion people are arrested daily for driving on suspended or revoked licenses. not the same thing. taking the keys away is the part of the designated driver buddy, not that of the state. we arrest people for driving drunk, but that’s not taking the keys away either.

        don’t rely on heartstring arguments to prove a point – you’ve made your stand, but as noted, one person is not more important than the next. taking that position eventually leads to devaluation of human life totally.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          To add on top of that – we arrest and prosecute people for assault and battery, and domestic violence. We don’t lock soft white fluffy pillows to their hands and feet so they can’t hurt anyone.

      2. avatar 505markf says:

        Paul – I really get it, but we take the keys from a drunk driver as part of punishment for the crime of drunk driving. The analogue in this case would be to charge the menacing person with assault and if convicted then forbid them to own firearms. But that isn’t what happens.

        Forbidding possession of firearms because of a threat – that is not otherwise prosecuted – would be like taking away the rights of someone who was drunk because they might drive, when in fact most of them would otherwise take a cab home from the bar.

        I’m an old-school kind of guy who believes the foundation of society ought to be protecting the weaker from the strong. I met my wife of 30 years while both of worked at a rape crisis center. My daughter has worked as a battered women’s caseworker. I really do get the need to protect these people.

      3. Anonymous…ever been in a situation where a person is put in a straight jacket and hauled away so they do not hurt themselves or others in the middle of an alcohol or drug induced rage?

      4. avatar Another Robert says:

        I don’t think we’ve actually reached the stage where we confiscate their cars ( other than impounding them, like that of any other arrestee taken while driving). So, no, I don’t think we “take the keys” from drunk drivers. I never saw that done in some 10 years of DWI prosecution.

        1. Well, that would work too.

          I guess it’s the difference between taking their ammo or their gun.

          : )

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Yeah–except the point is, we don’t take either–the keys or the cars–so your analogy has failed. What we do is issue a piece of paper that says the other piece of (laminated) paper that we gave them before–their driver’s license–is no good any more. Besides which–possession of cars isn’t a Constitutionally-protected right, possession of firearms is. So your DWI analogy is faulty, to say the least. Hardly “case closed”.

  10. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Bruce Kraft. Thanks for that informative and well written piece. I like how you emphasized your personal views on the matter (I agree with you) in footnote so that some of us (me included) didn’t shoot the messenger. 🙂 Rep. Tony Cornish and GOCRA appear to be doing some mighty hard work to act as buffers against these unconstitutional laws. Good for them!

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      +1

  11. avatar DV says:

    A symbol for law enforcement should lean toward patriotism and safety, not toward arrest authority. Whats with the pin.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      The police arrest people. That’s what they do in the criminal justice system.

  12. avatar jamesii says:

    So, where in this law do we find protections for the accused. What kind of substantiation must the accuser present in court to obtain an order. From what I read above I get the impression that a woman or man can walk into court, make an accusation and then the judge decides. Where is the due process in that. I agree we must deal with domestic violence but we must at the same time guard against false accusations that can ruin a persons life

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      You have perhaps not read it closely. There must be an adversary hearing, with both parties given the opportunity to be heard and be represented (on their own dime). That is itself the long-standing definition of “due process”. Standard of proof is not revealed here. Normally, it is “preponderance of the evidence”, i.e the greater weight of the credible evidence must be presented by the party with the burden of proof (the accuser here) whether before a judge or a jury. It could be a higher standard, don’t know about MN, but it is not going to be lower.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        In Ohio, the battered womens’ advocate office (now renamed DV or some “gender neutral” equivalent, can (and I’ve seen often does) provide representation for the plaintiff. I’ve personally watched them turn away men at the advocates office or try heavily try to discourage them. I’ve also personally seen courts rubber stamp an order in these hearings. In Ohio, the bar for proof is very, very low. Affidavits are generated at the advocates office by people (usually women) well versed in what it takes to get an order and make it stick. The process is sickening.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          Can’t argue with you there, but today’s subject law is out of MN, so that’s the one I’m addressing.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I’m not directly disputing. I was dropping in my 2 cents from experiences in Ohio. These things tend to ‘normalize’ over time. What becomes commonplace in a state or two or three becomes SOP in others or all. However, you raise a good point. This is about MN and not OH so I’ll leave it be.

  13. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    So after your day in court you still have 3 days to kill your estranged wife and high tail it to Belize before anyone comes to get your guns? What’s the point? If someone poses a credible threat to someone else this won’t do any more to deter him than those silly ‘gun free zone’ signs deter spree killers.

  14. avatar Mina says:

    Anyone who is paying attention can see that the state of the state is set up to punish/find men guilty and exonerate women.

    The shame of it that women who really are raped, beaten, stalked become just a small statistic and almost negligible in number as compared to the women who are gaming the system because they know it’s set up to benefit them at the expense of men.

    A Voice for Men covers this situation extensively and has for many years:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com

    If this particular state’s laws are set up to avoid that circumstance, great, but thus far elsewhere this trend is on an upswing.

    1. “Mina,” just making sure I understand your assertion.

      Are you saying a tiny fraction of women reporting domestic violence are actually being abused and that the overwhelming majority of them are simply lying?

      And, if I may, I am more and more convinced that you are not actually a woman, but a man having fun around here pretending to be a woman.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Interesting, since I am more and more convinced that you are not actually a man.

        1. avatar publius says:

          Ralph you beat me to it…

      2. avatar Mina says:

        You are a typical white knight and everything that entails.
        http://www.returnofkings.com/28129/the-white-knight-landing-page

        Hopefully everyone sees the irony of Paul T McCain attacking a woman consistently (for months) whilst claiming the moral high ground of being “pro team woman” – culminating in this conversation attacking me for speaking out against women for manufacturing false accusations against their male significant others for financial or other personal gain. Furthermore insulting my basic humanity for having the audacity to fail to pedestalize my fellow women by questioning whether or not I actually am one.

        Paul T McCain You are a vile human being for your behavior against me particularly and you couldn’t have illustrated it better than you did yesterday on this thread.

  15. avatar Jeremy says:

    Minnesota some years back had one county, Cook iirc that had judges who did due diligence. In almost all domestic cases, they never awarded anything except join custody, meaning no support payment either way unless there was a proven track of DV. Their court had the lowest incidence of reported DV,but the highest conviction/confirmation rate. They would jail a woman for a false report because it distracted the police from investigating real crimes. I think Lautenberg ended their record.

    1. avatar Mina says:

      “jail a woman for a false report” – we call that “black knighting” and it is very effective not only at deterring people from mis-using the system but also for calling attention to the unequal application of the law that can happen in these sorts of situations.

  16. avatar Jim Fleming says:

    Some things to consider with reference to the new Minnesota House Bill. For clarification, the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act, 518B.01, subd. 6 (a)(15(b), specifies a normal duration of no more than two years, with judicial discretion to lengthen that period “when appropriate”, and, under subd. 6a, it can later be extended under certain circumstances. My concern has to do with the reality of the practical application, as opposed to the “letter of the law”. In Minnesota, as in most other jurisdictions, the OFP has become a common tactical tool, used as a preemptive strike prior to the initiation of dissolution proceedings. This is because (1) the statute grants broad power to the courts relating to custody, support, income, personal property, and the domicile; and, (2) also because the vast majority of Judges will grant the OFP at hearing without much actual consideration of evidence, using a “better safe than sorry” rationale. Having represented numerous clients who have fallen victim to this reality, the argument “well they get due process” falls on my very deaf ears. In other words, “due process” in practice, does not mean what the non-lawyer thinks it means. A fellow, angry at being locked out when he stayed too late at the neighborhood barbeque, throws a plastic water glass against the garage wall. His wife, firmly believing she has to make him “get his mind right” requests an OFP. It is granted, he is excluded from his home, and contact with his wife and children. His firearms are taken from him by the local Sheriff, and shortly thereafter sold (including the shotgun given to him by his grandfather as a child). The wife, shocked at this, goes back to court seeking to have the OFP vacated. The Judge refuses. The husband has to find somewhere else to live. He is also charged by the local County Attorney with Domestic Assault and convicted, since in Minnesota fear is enough to gain a conviction, and the wife wrote in her OFP application that she was “afraid”. Lifetime ban on firearm possession under the Wellstone Amendment. Six months later, the couple is now divorced, the husband has moved out of state and the wife is wondering what the hell just happened. Made up story? No, I represented that husband. I heard the rationale issue from the lips of the Judge myself in chambers. So, forgive me for not putting on my short skirt and grabbing my pom poms over this House Bill. At this point, I think it is a solution in search of a problem, and I hope that it does not make it to the Governor’s desk.

    1. avatar A laywer too says:

      So, Jim Fleming, the bill was a public document from the day it was introduced. You are an attorney so you have internet service. Why didn’t you scan the Revisor’s site every day for bills like this (real easy in Minnesota)? Why don’t you contribute to GOCRA your professional knowledge and skills? Why didn’t you show up at the Hearings and give the voters (the legislators) the benefit of your great knowledge? Because you are afraid (a lawyer?) of public speaking, the drive to St. Paul is too long, or there is no $150/hr fee for speaking up?

      No, you sat back. And bitched in the Internet. What a successful strategy.

  17. avatar Jim says:

    Paul T McCain,

    allow me a few moments here, and some latitude. i’ll try to remain calm and polite, and ask you to actually read all of the words, in their context, and as I’ve written, and don’t draw your own sentence endings from mine after 4 words.

    one, i’ll establish my bonafides. Jim is my name, and I am a deputy sheriff in Atlanta. no, I will not call youtube to verify your identity, i’ll just take you at your word that you are who you say you are and have seen what you have seen. so, let’s not call credentials and identities into question. there’s really no need for that among long time posters and readers, who are quite well established on this site.

    two, in that I am a deputy, I am constantly serving orders, writs, warrants, etc. I have seen both sides to this, and yes, I have truly seen women who are beaten. please, let me actually finish the next few sentences before you hyperventilate. I have not seen very many, really any, battered women. and I don’t know many men down here who would stand for such a thing. I have seen women who were beaten, but usually give or gave as good as they get. I have seen women who are emotionally stunted, so I suppose you could say that’s a battered woman. emotionally, anyway. eyes to the floor, whipped puppy look, etc., but there is a pretty small proportion of people who wind up here.

    I have seen aggravated assaults, murders, etc. that is a fact of life when you deal with people who are brought up with no respect for human life or the rule of law. it is depressing at times, and I take great pains to show my wife, my daughter, and my many friends how much I care for them and their safety. this includes teaching how to shoot, how to communicate effectively, how to capture details for memory later, how to react in the moment, and most importantly, how to read people’s body language, and be aware of their surroundings. the love and affection I show them gives me the peace of mind to know as I sleep at night that they’re not going to go out and resolve any strange daddy issues with the first alcoholic jackwagon they meet.

    but here’s what else I have seen: HUGE amounts of “victims” gaming the system, even getting advice on how to game the system to their benefit. this is unacceptable. it is annoying in the extreme to watch, and even more so when you hear of plotting beforehand. “i’ll show him” is something that is thrown around a lot. the vast majority of complainants seem to fall here. a lot of these (usually women) like the “bad boy” type, but either fail to think about what all that entails, or live the kind of life that makes for interesting bathroom reading in the police blotter section of the paper. this is not “blame the victim” mentality here, it’s reality. a great many of these cases are just…..fraud.

    yes, women are physically weaker. remember the old quote: “God made man but Samuel Colt made them equal.” truer words were never spoken. teach these battered women how to look out for themselves and not depend on me or my brothers to somehow teleport in during the fracas to sort it all out. the state is not, and never should be, a nanny. critical thinking skills, alertness, and a mental state of readiness will square away these women you represent so emotionally.

    I watched the movie minority report. while most of America was entertained, I was appalled and frightened by it. when I got out of the US Army, I looked into being some sort of badge; the uniform and a mission still mean something to me. but I am a peace officer, not a law enforcement officer. there is a fine line but a huge mental difference between the two – ask any of us who still read or post here. despite the overwhelming amount of anti-cop comments, we are still here, and those of us who still believe in the American way, apple pie, mom, and the flag still do our job precisely because we’re in a position to prevent minority report from becoming a reality, at least in our worlds. I say that to say this: we should not ever get to the point where we make decisions trampling on the rights of others based on what might happen alone, especially without further prosecution. it’s one thing when there is a clear and well documented pattern of behavior, but simply on the word of someone who’s out to get over on somebody else is not enough.

    the hollywierd stereotype is “that bubba ray comes home from a rough day at the mill in his 88 transam with T-tops or whatever, mullet blowing in the wind. he’s a little down about being laid off (again) and bobby sue tries to keep him happy but you know how he gets when he gets a couple of beers in him, and next thing you know, bubba ray is beating the brakes off of bobby sue for no reason, and maybe if she’d kept her mouth shut and stood closer to the stove none of this would have happened, but she still loves him so can she drop the charges? he said he’d change….” but here on planet earth, that is not reality. it may happen, but it is extremely rare.

    bottom line is that you should not be using emotion as a real, valid, or credible argument when talking about such a polarizing subject as DV, and you must NEVER use emotion as a tool to further a move to overcome the rights of another American. in order for any system of law to work correctly, it must be judged impartially and as clinically as possible. that’s not possible with humans, but we should be trying. running willy nilly over somebody’s natural, civil, Constitutional, and common sense rights because you’re emotionally involved is a no-go.

    if you find that you would like to help be a responsible, clear thinking, reasonable, rational, and alert citizen, teach those whom you care about how to avoid these things and take care of themselves. you learn too. then we will welcome you to the family. if you are not willing to do those things, and somehow think it’s my job as a cop, or that of a judge, to make bubba ray go away and stay away from bobby sue, then you are deeply and woefully delusional, and should learn to enjoy your mental anguish. if you feel that you are unable to make that determination logically, unemotionally, and using the merits of EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, then please, stay the hell away from everybody else’s rights, and live on in your own self-imposed victimhood.

    1. avatar Lord Wulfgen says:

      Thread winner, right here.

      I award you 1000 internetz.

    2. avatar Jeremy says:

      Well said! I worked in local government for many years, I got to see the real story. I have seen plenty of women who gamed the system, and the local women’s shelters aid and abet them.
      One key to ending the cycle was the patriarchal family. When homes had dads, they looked out for the welfare of their daughters and grandkids. To see a true matriarchal society, look no further than Chiraq

    3. avatar Mina says:

      PWNED

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Well done. Thank you, sir.

    5. avatar publius says:

      thanks Jim for your service, and speaking from long street experience with your truth.

      I think the majority of those with any life experience agree that the issue is far from black and white, and the stats here and elsewhere show that the same:

      http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2013/07/22/male-victims-find-themselves-in-the-same-position-women-were-30-years-ago/

      And we would be naive in the extreme to believe there is not an agenda on the part of some, who take advantage of the natural sympathy but poor reasoning skills of guys like Paul.

      http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/what-is-the-domestic-violence-industry-really-about/

      Lets not play into the “PR prep of the battlefield” for 2014 and 2016 by the Democratic Party. When the prog-tards flog ‘War On Women’ yet again, despite their dismal failures on jobs, the economy, domestic security, health care, and foreign policy- we are playing into it to get distracted from the real issues, and the number one issue here at TTAG- 2A rights.

  18. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

    Paul T. Been there done that have the t shirt. Is Sheltering Wings enough of a reference for you?

    I don’t even think you realize your hypocrisy.

    My father, an exceedingly smart guy, told me that freedom by its very nature is a messy thing. Sometimes to remain free we must sacrifice and are forced to clean up a few messes afterwards. I much prefer freedom to any alternative however.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Your father is a wise man.

  19. avatar Icabod says:

    As a First Sergeant, I got a certain amount of soldiers moving into the barracks after a domestic dispute. More often then not the spouse would call and follow a detailed script:
    1. I’m afraid
    2. Take his civilian clothes away.
    3. Make him report in every two hours
    4. Get me his paycheck.

    You get the picture. My reply was to go to a judge, get a no contact order, and bring it in. Invariably, after a few days, he was back in the house. Never ever got any order from a judge.

    The impression I have is when the dispute gets to court, judges will play it safe. The guns will be gone. For the complaing spouse there seems to be no downside. it’s a great way to get even and set oneself up to get more out of the divorce

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee reverend how many folks use their real name on the internet? Mostly egomaniacs or certified lunatics? Being PAID to minister doesn’t make you more of an expert.
    Sorry I thought you were OK. Maybe Burke is right.

  21. avatar Porterhaus says:

    I’d like to think that Minnesota is slowly becoming more pro-gun despite being dominated by liberal democrats, and that’s a pretty good thing. We still can’t have SBS or Non-C&R Machineguns, and suppressors are banned due to a poaching problem we had a while ago but those laws are easing up as well. Now FFLs and Police officers can have suppressors, oh joy! But our governor is a huge jerk. THREE TIMES we had a total overhaul of our self defense laws in a package containing Stand Your Ground and Castle doctrine pass through legislature and our governor vetoed it every time. Right now he’s coming under fire for opposing medicinal marijuana and allegedly told families that personally appealed him face-to-face to buy marijuana for their children off the street. That’s just all sorts of messed up, morals aside, because he’s admitting it’s easy enough to get already but won’t just go with it. He’s a pretty lousy governor and I kinda want Jesse Ventura back just so I know We’ve got a GOT-DAMN SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS as our state’s Jefe.

  22. avatar Jon Jay says:

    Because NOBODY who would violate an OFP would EVER violate a gun law.
    And knives,fists and bats ceased to work recently.

    Right.

    Later “tweaks” will come to change subtle words back to the police taking possession .
    It’ll become a money making auction scenario for them just like impounded cars.

    If ‘rats can sneak an unconstitutional bill through for a $90 million office building that is not needed, they can and will do this ,too.

  23. avatar Slim says:

    This happened at a base I was stationed at. The husband threatened his wife and was a gun owner, the base leadership took his guns away. He ended up killing his wife with a knife the day their divorce was finalized.

  24. avatar Kevin Vick says:

    While this law will not stop someone intent on doing violence against someone else from doing so, those who understand the political underpinnings of this legislation will applaud Representative Tony Cornish, GOCRA, MNGOPAC, and all supporters of 2nd amendment rights for getting the hugely egregious language removed from the bill. You can win battles and lose the war. Or, you can strategically choose to engage in a skirmish and keep it from becoming a battle you can’t win. There is a bigger war to fight and these folks are fighting it every day on behalf of all law abiding citizen firearm owners.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Although I disagree with you on just about everything else, I am thankful that they were able to tone down the bill. Kudos.

      Now regarding just about everything else; we’ve already lost a war of baby steps. Too little, too late landed us here and it certainly will not get us back out. Giant leaps or Liberty loses. The balance of power is favoring big government too much for baby steps to be effective in the long term. The media has abandoned rights and works against them. Too many statists running around (“2A but-heads”). Public school is turning out brainwashed useful idiots faster than we will turn any major tides with small works. Massive civil disobedience, correct the Judicial Review usurpation of Marbury v. Madison, shrink the federal government to Constitutional scope; then the RKBA and other rights are likely to be secure for many generations. Anything less and even the next generation is taking a net loss. This isn’t just about the RKBA. While we may get thrown a bone here and there on the RKBA, we take tremendous losses on other rights. What we’re doing now isn’t eating an elephant… we’re creating more by giving any semblance of legitimacy to these glaring infringements.

  25. avatar A laywer too says:

    Jim, the deputy, says correctly that a “large number of victims” scam the system. They have willing accomplices in the woman’s “support” groups (often paid with public funds) who show them exactly how to successfully defraud the OFP system.

    They get away with this because the woman are ORGANIZED and POLITICAL. Every state has a “men’s rights” group. Have any of you commentators ever sent them a single dollar? No. Joined one? No. Written a letter in opposition to a bill like the one under discussion? No.

    As long as the men get drunk instead of organizing and fighting in the political arena, they will lose. It is possible to oppose organized lying (what the battered women’s groups specialize in) without supporting actual spousal abuse. But each man has to get off his ass and DO IT.

    1. avatar Kevin Vick says:

      I’ve testified a number of times before Minnesota legislative committees in opposition to a number of gun bills including the original version of this one. In all cases, the chambers were packed with GOCRA members, predominantly male but also represented by pro-second amendment females including one who testified against the initial version of this bill. We show up, we testify, we write letters, meet with our representatives, and make calls. Plenty of men are organized and fighting in the political arena. Maybe you should join us instead of casting wild aspersions from the sidelines.

  26. avatar Ken says:

    My brother’s wife recently decided to take advantage of the “Adult Abuse Act” in Missouri to get a cheap divorce and take is kids away in a summary hearing. I was absolutely appalled when I found out how the “Order of Protection racket works. It is pathetic in Missouri but it is the same in most states. I am looking for a lawyer to represent my brother and change how this is done in Missouri. Anybody know a Missouri attorney that could help? My brother is in the IT industry and has been unemployed a lot over the last 5 years. With one kid in college an two more to go, he doesn’t have the money to pay a lawyer $200/hour but he is willing to be the test case for the good of thousands of men being abused by these crazy legal systems. Yes, they are set up for a good purpose of helping abused women but the femanazi’s got ahold of these laws and used junk science to convince legislators that men who say mean things to their wives are just a heartbeat away from killing them — that is insane! Here’s the e-mail I’ve been sending around to various Missouri attorneys but I haven’t found one yet. I have lots more good information on this topic if you are interested.

    I am searching for a Missouri attorney affiliated with Gun Owners of America that would be willing to take on the Missouri courts and stop their abuse of Second Amendment rights.

    The Missouri legislature respects the Second Amendment and insists that the federal government respect the Amendment within her borders. Missouri recently passed what has been referred to as a gun control nullification law. http://time.com/52277/missouri-lawmakers-attempt-to-nullify-federal-gun-laws-again/

    Ironically, Missouri’s courts are notorious in their contempt for First, Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights in only one area. See, David H. Dunlap, The Adult Abuse Act: Theory vs. Practice, 64 UMKC L. REV. 681 (1996); Trends in Adult Abuse and Child Protection, 66 UMKC L. Rev. 1 (1997) (articles by Missouri Judge very critical of the practice of the courts); and http://www.missouriexparte.com/ (“The order of protection law has been the most abused law in Missouri since the law was passed. In many courts across our state a person needs to merely fill out a petition for an ex parte order and a judge will blindly sign the order and, if the respondent has not shelled out hundreds of dollars for a lawyer or has not fully prepared his own legal defense, the judge will blindly enter a full order of protection against him or her. This very common practice destroys the reputation and lives of many innocent people.”).

    Upon a bare allegation of harassment or coercion and under color of federal law, Missouri’s trial courts routinely prohibit possession of any firearm for one year and the judge may extend the order twice for a total of three years. Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act suspends concealed carry permits but does not prohibit possession of firearms. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.104.1(1). However, the Adult Abuse Act required the Missouri Supreme Court to promulgate forms for Orders of Protection (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.073) and the Court has designed those forms to prohibit possession of a firearm under color of federal law. See attachments.

    Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act requires courts to give notice to a respondent of all relief available in an Order of Protection hearing. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 455.073.3. Nonetheless, the Missouri Supreme Court has issued forms for this advisement that do not mention firearms at all. The Missouri Supreme Court has also promulgated a form for trial judges to use for full orders of protection that encourages judges to prohibit firearm possession by checking boxes with boilerplate conclusions that masquerade as judicial findings.

    Ironically, while the Missouri legislature is leading the nation in fighting federal gun control within her borders, the Missouri courts are using federal law to deprive Missouri citizens of their Second Amendment rights perhaps thousands of times per year. Judge Dunlap reported in his “Theory v. Practice” article that, in his court alone, he handled 209 petitions under the Adult Abuse Act in 1995. The larger courts in the state have a “cattle call” several times a week to provide “due process” to the men accused of abuse. In practice, this takes the form of a summary hearing before the judge grants the order for one year — if the judge is not able to intimidate the man into “voluntarily” signing an order. I have no statistics but it is a reasonable assumption that the judges deprive the vast majority of these men of their Second Amendment rights.

    My brother’s case is illustrative. Judge Campbell gave my brother an abbreviated hearing of approximately 30 minutes before summarily depriving him of his Second Amendment rights. Judge Campbell admitted on the record that there was no evidence of violence and, nevertheless, he checked the appropriate boxes to deprive my brother of his Second Amendment rights without having ever giving notice that such relief was available or taking any testimony about the likelihood of future danger or about my brother’s guns or his use of his guns.
    The basis of Judge Campbell’s order? My brother’s wife stormed out the front door after accusing my brother of being a homosexual (with zero basis) and my brother locked the door behind her for, as she testified, “a few moments.” That’s it. If your wife ever storms out the door, you damn well better not lock that door. Once the bolt clicks, you are done! With these laws, pre-crime is all over the United States right now.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email