Reporter Michael Luo, of The New York Times reports that In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection. He sets things up by presenting a sympathetic victim and her horrifying story:
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.
… In neat block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.” …
The judge’s order prohibited Mr. [Corey] Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home … What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.
About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.
Now before jumping on the “OMG they should have taken his guns!” bandwagon, let’s do something that the antis hate; let’s stop and think for a moment. Here we have a man who violated his restraining order by coming to his ex’s house, planning to murder her in front of their children. And yet does Luo seriously expect us to believe that if only the judge had ordered Corey to turn in his guns, none of this would have happened?
Yep, that is precisely what he wants us to believe:
For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms.
Indeed this episode might have been prevented if only Stephanie had gotten herself a gun. I don’t normally make a habit of blaming the victim, but if she truly believed (as she stated in her affidavit) that her husband posed a deadly threat, where the heck was her gun?
According to the story she managed to dial 9-1-1 on her cellphone during this ambush, so I find it hard to believe she wouldn’t have had a chance to end the threat to herself and her family if only she had taken responsibility for their safety instead of relying on the overworked and undermanned police department.
So whose fault is it that Corey had a gun? You guessed it…the NRA’s:
But that is not the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.
Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders.
I’ll set aside the question of how many of those supposed DV advocates agitating for more gun control are actually antis dancing in the blood of different victims and point out that temporary restraining orderss (like the one issued to Stephanie in this case) are often granted without informing the person against whom the order is granted or allowing them the chance to rebut the allegations.
They’re frequently an emergency measure to be used until the court can hear from both sides. The idea that the courts should be able to strip people of their rights on a mere allegation of wrongdoing would be greeted with howls of protests for anything but Second Amendment rights.
But Luo explains why it’s really important to strip people of their rights at the slightest accusation:
Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
Well, yeah, the majority of murders (about 2/3) are committed with firearms regardless of whether it is an “intimate partner” a drug dealer or a gang-banger whose hand is holding the gun.
In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life.
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Are you saying that only women are subject to domestic violence? How sexist! As for the right to bear arms being required to “give ground” to protect lives? First and foremost, 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. Second, even if that were not so, the fact of the matter is that more than twice as many lives are saved in defensive gun uses annually than are lost in criminal gun uses. Third, if Stephanie had been carrying a gun to protect herself and her family, odds are she would not have wound up at the mercy of her ex, cowering, hysterical, on the floor.
But Mikey gives away the real agenda a couple of paragraphs later:
In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. …
That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are included in gun control legislation being debated in several states.
Since the Newtown shooting had absolutely nothing to do with domestic violence, it’s obvious that the real agenda here has nothing to do with preventing domestic violence. Instead, the antis are just taking advantage of the latest atrocity in order to push their agenda.
Luo drones on for several pages, but it’s all basically rehashing the same stories in different states. In some of them, intimate partners were killed. In others they were assaulted, but the common thread running throughout is not that someone “had access to a gun”; instead, the common thread is that someone ignored restraining orders, laws, mores and societal conventions and committed murder (or tried to). One more law isn’t going to stop them, nor will closing this loophole or that exemption. The fact of the matter is that bad people sometimes do bad things, and those of us who don’t do bad things shouldn’t be punished for those who did.
P.S. I like the way the photo portrays him with his mouth open wide.
He should ‘muzzle’ it….with an M1911 .45 cal ACP, that has the sear spring filed down to make it fully automatic when the trigger is pulled……
“America has to stand up,” said a weary and angry Senator Feinstein, who will offer a separate assault-weapons ban amendment. “I can’t fight the NRA. The NRA spends unlimited sums, backed by the gun manufacturers, who are craven in my view.”
Translation:
“Damned NRA bought Harry Reid years ago!”
Senator Feinstein, I’d say it is your fellow democrat senators who are craven….
TO: Senator Feinstein—Rhymes with Frankenstein
RE: Standing Up
We Americans ARE ‘standing up’, against YOU.
We’re armed. And many of US are professionally trained to be ‘dangerous’.
But we do it ALL for the Constitution of the United States. Something that you have broken your oath of office with.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Turth will out…..]
TO: All
RE: PTSD
So the guy is a Nam vet.
Then he OBVIOUSLY MUST SUFFER FROM PTSD!
According to the VA, he shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm of ANY KIND.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out….even in a the form of a self-inflicted wound.]
The NYtimes uses his Vet status for their side of the argument but ignores those 1200 plus Green Berets who signed that pro 2nd letter a few months back.
well, more often than not all parties are to blame to some degree. She should have been more prepared (even if the judge had taken the weapons), but the judge should have taken the weapons. Family lawyer in the family, and very rarely are domestic disputes totally one sided.
P.S. why are some of my comments getting eaten on this new platform?
So you’re ok with your property being confiscated with no investigation or due process? An OOP is completely one sided. A lot of times, the target is not even allowed to argue the initial issue until much later. What if the OOP was sworn out falsely?
I keep telling you, “People should NOT think!” This is a dangerous procedure that can only get the average moron in trouble.
… isn’t this the same newspaper that wheeled out gatling guns to mow down protesters outside of its offices?
As Savage says; “liberalism is a mental disorder”. I would also add that “Liberals” hi-jacked the term; they are neither liberal nor particularly constructive thinkers.
The problem in all of this is that there really isn’t any legitimate argument put forth by those who would gut the Second Amendment. And if there isn’t anything in the way of an informed, logical argument, it then holds we have little to work with to counter the argument.
Point being; it does very little good to present history, fact and precedent in a well crafted argument (with the hope of seeing that little cloud-filled epiphany), to an opposing argument, if the debater on the other end is fine with his conjecture, fear and ranting.
This entire fight or at least this particular iteration of the fight, is about nibbling at the edges of the insanity crowd and we will/are winning some over who have not yet slipped into the pit from which there is no return. Characters like Michael Luo are idealists – irrational, fear ridden idealists, but idealists never-the-less and the hardest thing for an idealist to do, is give up on his pre-suppositions on any subject encapsulated within the paradigm that is his irrational, idealistic realm.
Too bad for Mexico that they and thir US surrogates lie La Raza wok so hard to keep the border porous to allow Mexico’s excess population easy access to the US.
The best part is that all of this really comes down to Constitutionality – which the Supreme Court has already ruled on.
They said that the 2nd Amendment is “not without restriction,” and that there can, in fact, be laws limiting the availability of firearms to the general public, and regulation of the acquisition of firearms.
The Supreme Court is there to rule on the Constitutionality of law – which is made clear in the Constitution itself.
So if you really, truly and honestly believe that we should follow the Constitution, then you have to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Otherwise, you’re just a hypocrite that will only follow the Constitution when you like what it says – and that’s not the American way of doing things. Not if you really follow the founding documents and their dictates.
You can’t have it both ways. Either you support the Constitution fully and the ruling that the Court it provides for has given, or you don’t support the Constitution at all and become unpatriotic in the process.
It’s pretty simple when you look at it objectively and logically.
And how would they have asked him to surrender his guns in the first place? Probably, via a letter sent to his address with a proposed deadline. “Mr. Holten: Due to a recent court-ordered restraining order taken out against you, you are hereby required to surrender all firearms by [date two weeks from letter date].” It’s never immediate, giving some psycho adequate time put their plan to harm in motion.
Look at the case with Terrell Suggs of the Baltimore Ravens. His girlfriend took out a restraining order against him on November 20, 2012, resulting from an alleged domestic abuse incident that occurred in September. He didn’t surrender his firearms until December 7, 2012 – basically 2 1/2 weeks later.
Hmmm not from Washington, but it looks like they have a 5 day waiting period if you don’t have what they call a Concealed Pistol License. So there is no way that Stephanie Holten could have purchased a gun to protect herself, since she was attacked in 12 hours. Sometimes these stupid laws that block access to firearms cut both ways.
The craziest part is that they want to disarm someone based on an EX PARTE protective order.
Ex Parte means you have no notice and no say. Based on one person’s affidavit, which is often a load of crap, the Court enters a protective order saying you have to stay x feet from your soon to be ex-wife. The Court then sets a hearing for you to come in and give your side. After the hearing, the protective order either continues or is terminated.
The Times now wants the Court to curtail a fundamental right and seize personal property based on one person’s side of the story. We have due process in this country. Sometimes that due process gives a bad person enough time to do bad things, but that is the cost of freedom.
I don’t understand why the cops who pulled the trigger aren’t in jail for attempted murder or something of that nature…
It’s absolutely absurd that there aren’t any reports of disciplinary actions. Then again, this may serve to prove that we need the highest capacity possible magazines we can have, 102+bullets and 2 hits? From “trained professionals” no less..
The income tax thing could be worked around, and the photo op thing is just insulting.
+1
“SAY CHEESE! AND DON’T FORGET TO SMILE NEXT TO THE GUYS WHO ALMOST SHOT YOU TO DEATH!”
C’mon, LAPD… really?
“[T]emporary restraining orderss (like the one issued to Stephanie in this case) are often granted without informing the person against whom the order is granted or allowing them the chance to rebut the allegations”
Got to love America 🙂
This gem stuck out to me.
“He owns guns, I am scared.”
I would be willing to bet money that in the Spokane area more people do than don’t. Seriously, eastern Washington & northern Idaho is as gun country as it gets. The question in reply should have been “and you don’t”?”
The Police fired 102 rounds? Time for 7round mag limits for them. Geez
And now they are going to get enough to buy an abrams. Works for me.
> You are looking at a case of 1,000 rounds of Winchester 5.56
> ammunition that just showed up on my doorstep.
Occupy Nick’s doorstep!
Restraining orders, education programs don’t always prevent domestic violence deaths
Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Restraining-orders-education-programs-don-t-2278674.php#ixzz2OBn8hut0
I’m starting a “I hate Nick Leghorn’s newfound bliss of ammo and guns” Facebook group…Any takers?
In.
Who cares if some factory sponsored shootist gets gob smacked with a case of quality ammo for free. What about the rest of us? I am personally pretty well stocked up with ammo since I had the foresight to see all this coming. You don’t have to be Nostradamus to read the tea leaves on this stuff. Still, rubbing it in our noses is a little cheesy.
This is only partially directed at you, because I’ve seen it in lots of other places, but some of us didn’t get into firearms until just before things hit the fan. Some of us couldn’t afford to stockpile. Some of us were inspired to get a firearm for the first time BECAUSE of Sandy Hook and the ensuing legislative storm. Stockpiling ammo was without a doubt wise, and it’s certainly paying off for those that did. No question of that. Ragging on the rest of us who, for a variety of reasons, did not isn’t very cool.
Nothing…. Yet. I have a set of flip up back up sights, but The first thing I wanna add is an optic of some kind. I just don’t know what I want. I know I want some amount of magnification, and that I’m not a huge fan of red dots or holographic sights. Other than my AR being piston driven I’m a bit of a traditionalist, and I really avoid tacticool anything.
they wanted the picture to use in the enventual civil suit for their injuries (“see, they weren’t hurt so badly!”), which is coming. This only would deal with their personal property damaged., not their injuries, which makes it more amazing. Why not just do a friggin’ tax gross-up for them? Yes, it would have cost the city a bit more, but the goodwill is priceless
I waited too long to get an AR, now they’re well out of my price range. So for now, nothing.
When I do get one, I’ll likely keep it pretty simple.
Carbine length, left handed upper, right handed lower, quad rails, rail covers, moe commercial spec stock with butt pad extension 0.70, Magpul fore grip, standard rear grip and front sight, rear flip sight, 20rd pmags, all black.
Id like electronic sights but my eyes don’t work well with them, (a)stigmatism?
Simple yet effective.
Where to buy one???????
All wonderful news … good luck finding ammo.
Google really can be your friend. Try the search: 100 meters to yards
Or just enter: unit converter
and you get a really slick unit conversion tool.
If it was 5.56×45 or 7.62×51 or .45Acp they would have been found with “some” rounds…….
I’ve always liked SC, but they’re still one of the nine states that won’t accept any of my carry permits. I always refer to them as SEMI-COMMIES, but the other eight states are still full blown no good COMMIES. Hopefully they’ll see the light and they’ll be on the good list.
Liberal=Progressive=Socalist=Communist=Would Be Overloard