Quote of the Day: Fun With Bureaucracy Edition

Screen Shot 2014-10-15 at 3.54.12 PM

“I was told by the judge that it was the expectation that when someone is served a restraining order that they will turn in their weapons. Of course he didn’t turn in his weapons because he wanted to harm me and he does not follow rules in general. I had to call the judge and probation officers repeatedly and send emails regarding my concerns before he ordered that my ex-husband finally turn his weapons over. It was absolutely ridiculous and terrifying that the court would leave something like that in the hands of the abusive individuals.” – Nicole Beverly in These Abusers Aren’t Allowed To Own Guns. So Why Aren’t States Removing Them? [at huffingtonpost.com]


  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    Putting the focus on the wrong thing once again. As if removing them would prevent access? As if a gun is the only way to hurt/kill a human being?

    The reality is there is somebody out there who you reasonably believe wishes to cause you harm and you’re outsourcing your protection to an indifferent/inept entity which has no skin in the game.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      Exactly. The courts do not hold your desire to survive high on their list of priorities, they have paperwork to complete after all. How someone can put their life in the hands of a bureaucracy is beyond me. You have a desire to survive, he has a desire to harm. You can’t take away either desire, or have a court take away that desire, so you have to put more effort on your desire to survive than he puts into harming you in a situation like this.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      +1 Correct, it is not just wrong, it is WRONGFUL for someone, or some entity (gov’t or otherwise) to say that they can or do protect you on the individual level. It is just not possible.

      And (However) Courts frequently get it wrong when issuing a restraining order, in some circuits the restraining order is just part of the ‘process’. I would not turn in my guns until I at least had an attorney go back and fight the restraining order. If they are going to just do ‘anything-goes’, then they are doing my version. If the message from the courts or leo is ever ‘tough-sh_t’ let them have the first bite and the majority portion.

    3. avatar ChuckN says:

      I don’t know. After reading, my first thought was not that
      they (the woman, judge etc… ) were focused on the
      wrong thing, but that a judge has made a legal decision
      and our illustrious judicial system has refused to enforce
      it. Either way it still shows us that a restraining order is
      nothing more than paper.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “According to data collected by Everytown For Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention group begun by Mike Bloomberg,”

    Wait. What?
    I thought it was a bunch of grass roots moms, not some billionaire with a Napoleon complex (and stature).

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Has he gotten any foreign money to fight our Constitution?

    2. avatar John - PA says:

      That’s Moms Demand Action. Everytown is (from their website) “More than 2 million mayors, moms, cops, teachers, survivors, gun owners, and everyday Americans have come together to make their own communities safer.”

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Is that the same 2 mil who are “dedicated members” of MDA according to Shannon? Or does Everytown have its own 2 mil?

        1. avatar Sian says:

          They count everyone who has visited the site or facebook page as a member. Since they don’t actually have formal membership, with dues and stuff, they can inflate their apparent support as much as they like.

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    In this case, I’m wondering if the liberals have any amendment that they hold in any particular respect. Confiscating any property based on a ex-parte order, is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendment.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Just figuring that out? I’m thinkin’ there are close to a billion firearms in the U.S., every single one of which they want to confiscate with a single ex-parte order. And this is important, we can’t be worried with silliness like the Constitution.

  4. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    It’s called take responsibly for yourself. Don’t expect the state to do it for you. They don’t and won’t be there when and if you need them.

  5. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Right. It would be FAR simpler to advise and even assist the victims in obtaining a weapon and learning to use it. And much more effective into the bargain. This constant drumming of ideologically blind stupidity does nothing but make life more complex without benefit, where just saying “defend yourself” would take care of it.

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

    There’s a certain fallacy in willfully disarming yourself with the expectation that unaccountable bureaucrats will protect you. Seems obvious to me, but half the country is oblivious to it.

  7. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    So, she knew this guy was a criminal and violent and was with him anyway? THEN she is upset that a 3rd party was not being more active in stopping his criminal activities? Why did she A. not get in bed with this a$$hole to begin with and 2. not arm herself once she did know what a violent piece of sh*t he was? A whole chain of events which did not need to be pulled, had she not grabbed it to begin with. And now she wants everyone else to be punished because she did stupid things with a stupid person.

    1. avatar Fred says:

      This may ruffle a few feathers, but this sort of thing makes me think of bankruptcy and abortion*. There are a million poor choices that were made before someone is “forced” into either of these, but instead of taking responsibility for those choices and making better choices all along the road to a poor end it’s everyone’s fault but their own so everyone else should make it better for them. Most people seem to be controlled by their emotions so it seems perfectly normal to make bad decisions as long as it feels good (which is what the schools and psychologists seem to teach these days), which is also why emotional pleas make the most sense to them (aka gun-grabber logic).

      *There are people that have had terrible things happen to them that warrant either of these, but in my experience the majority are due to a string of poor choices.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Year by year I have less sympathy for this situation. I see the same people doing the same stupid things, over and over. Not in the news or media. In the world around me every day. Hell, I see the children of abuse survivors doing the EXACT same thing. And telling them not to just makes them do it even more. Last May we helped move a woman into a house away from her abusive husband. In September she was rushed to the hospital because he beat the sh*t out of her, 3 days after inviting him to move in. Her kids are now in the custody of the county of Armstrong, she is still in the hospital, he is back out of jail and living in the house she was moved to in order to get away from him. This is not an anomaly! This sh*t happens all over the country every damned day. And leftards want to punish law abiding citizens for all this stupid sh*t. Sweet bleeding Jeebus.

        1. avatar Tomyironmane says:

          What happens when the wife is beating the tar out of the husband, though?

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          It happens, and men are far less likely to report it.

  8. avatar Dermott says:

    Get a gun, learn how to use it and be vigilant. Some states have express service for applicants who need a gun right away.
    Depending on the courts and police to protect you is ludicrous. They can’t be everywhere at once and surprisingly, criminals do not follow the law.

  9. avatar billy rohe says:

    I’d want to kill her too, If I had to look at that ugly scowl every morning.

    1. avatar Alpo says:

      Thanks for that useless and stupid contribution.

    2. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Rohes’ remark is crass and disappoints the good nature of this forum.

    3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Nice try troll. Now get lost.

  10. avatar Alpo says:

    Even if the courts could be relied upon to forcefully seize the other party’s firearms, how would they know what he does or doesn’t own?

    Unless of course the end game is full registration.

  11. avatar Mediocrates says:

    somebody please point out to me the part of the Constitution that says the Federal government can tell me I’m not allowed to own a gun.

    (please don’t bother telling me they have more guns, tanks, and airplanes than I do. I get that already)

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      More to the point, what part of the Constitution allows the confiscation of property without due process, simply on the word of another individual?

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Pretty sure the Congressional Black Caucus found that in the Good&Plenty Clause. Right after the Right To Not Be Insulted.

        1. avatar Taylor TX says:

          Lets not forget The Right To be Offended 🙂

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          I believe that is the Right to Not Be Offended, as stated by Maxine”Aunt Esther” Waters.

        3. avatar 80 D says:

          And the right to feel safe.

  12. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Why doesn’t she just put a sign out in front of her home that says “Abuse Free Zone”? I hear those signs fix everything.

  13. avatar Shannon's Pimp says:

    If the person in question lives in a state where you vote for judges, can she also request that his voting rights be abrogated because he might vote against this particular judge who issued the order????

  14. avatar DerryM says:

    If the guy really wanted to hurt her, I am guessing he could manage to do it whether he had a gun or not. According to the article the husband is now in prison for repeatedly violating the restraining order and stalking her.
    Reads like the point of the article was to advocate for States to amend their laws and procedures to insure anyone subject to such a court order is required to surrender (or subjected to forcible seizure) any guns in their possession, so this woman is just a convenient “example” for HuffPo to use to further a larger agenda. She probably thinks she’s “special”, but HuffPo could/would have as gladly used any other woman in her situation to make the same point.
    From the Article.
    “But Michigan — like most states — doesn’t have a law requiring people with domestic violence restraining orders to actually surrender their firearms to authorities. Without a mandatory state process in place to remove his guns, Beverly’s husband was left armed and dangerous.”
    Just HuffPo using someone’s grief to advance their own control agenda that would not prevent a determined attacker from harming a targeted victim.

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      And once they have their restraining order weapon confiscation laws down they will move on to restraining order vehicle confiscation laws, then restraining order tool confiscation laws, and on and on and on. It is all about stealing property, they don’t give a f**k about the safety of spouses and children.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        I don’t know that it is all about stealing property, but they definitely do not “give a f**k about the safety of spouses and children”. The bottom line is the larger number of us are considered expendable when it comes to who controls who. A lot of lip service is paid to “the value of each and every life”, but it is really only that and only offered for the most base of reasons…deception.

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Always follow the money, it usually goes places those grabbing wish to keep out of public scrutiny. Will it be from selling confiscated property? No. It will be court costs, storage fees, bond fees, lawyer’s fees on both sides and the government. Fees for anger management, counseling, supervised visits. Fines for non-compliance, late fees for not getting papers in on time. The selling of confiscated property will be way down the list. Once the confiscation without due process train really gets rolling it will be next to impossible to stop, legally, and will lead to people most likely dying for refusing to surrender whatever it is the confiscators have decided to steal.

          Hell, legally seized property is a financial and legal nightmare to get back.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          I understand your points and agree! Control + Money (or Money + Control) = Power. Once the Power is gained the legal system makes it impossible to reverse, particularly for the “ordinary person”. Kind of terrible to have to be so cynical, but the deeper I look about me the more apparent my “Pawnship” in a situation I have neither the money or control to influence becomes. Our belief we are “Free People” is very conditional and tenuous these days.

        3. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Acceptance of reality is not cynicism.

        4. avatar DerryM says:

          You know…you’re right! Great point and makes me see a better perspective…Thanks!

  15. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    Bad guys don’t follow the rules? OMG!!!

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      I know, right? It’s like he wanted to be a criminal or something.

  16. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    The state comes and takes the guns away, then the estranged ex-husband in a fit of rage goes and kills the ex-wife with a knife because he’s just crazy. According to PuffPro this is the preferred outcome since they can now have candlelight vigils and sing “we shall overcome” that generates an emotional “connection” without actually having to deal with that icky personal protection stuff.

  17. avatar JohnTX says:

    And why exactly should my rights be put in jeopardy because you were stupid enough to marry this guy?

  18. avatar neiowa says:

    It took FIVE months before she decided the ALLEGED incident/beatin happened and need to be reported? Color me skeptical.

    EBOLA in America – brought to you by Barack Hussein Obama and the democrat party

  19. avatar IdahoPete says:

    WAIT, WAIT, WAIT … is she saying that the Fed gummint’s anti-gun laws did NOT protect her? And that the solution is to get more laws on the books because maybe the State gummint will protect her? Maybe we need a law that makes it illegal to beat someone “almost unconscious”! Oh, that’s right, we already have that law.

    Maybe she needs to realize that the only entity that can protect her is herself. We refer to that as “personal responsibility”. As in, buy a gun, learn how to use it, and shoot the SOB when he kicks your door in – you know, like many women are doing now all over the country? That’s called “personal empowerment”.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      You don’t understand the perspective of the modern American feminist.

      The world is supposed to revolve around her. Now.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    I’ve been divorced twice. The second was mutually beneficial and the only divisive point was how much I was going to pay her — she wanted LESS and I was concerned that she wouldn’t have enough. The first was as nasty as it gets and she lied her ass off.

    Without due process, how do we know she’s telling the truth? Even with due process we won’t know for sure, but at least there’s the protection of due process.

  21. avatar DJ says:

    The answer is “due process.”

    I’m sure he could go tell the court how you allegedly slept with half the neighborhood then attacked him with an ice pick, but if the police came to place you in custody and confiscate your property as a result, I think you’d have a problem with that.

    Next question.

  22. avatar SemperFlyBoy says:

    A restraining order is just a piece of paper, but then so are “Gun Free Zone” and “No Weapons Allowed” signs. Learn to protect yourself effectively.

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