CT Senators: Close the Restraining Order Loophole

Whatcha gonna do? (courtesy bizpacreview.com)

“U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Not A God Given Right” Murphy have unveiled new federal legislation they say would close loopholes that leave domestic violence victims vulnerable to gun violence after the issuance of a temporary restraining order,” boston.com reports. “Blumenthal and Murphy co-sponsored the Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act that was unveiled in Hartford on Friday. They say the legislation would establish consistent, nationwide protections for victims of domestic violence.” What they don’t say is that the bill “Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to modify the definition of: (1) “intimate partner” to include a dating partner or former dating partner of a person (replacing language including an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person); and (2) “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include an offense that has, as an element, the use of physical force or a deadly weapon by a dating partner or former dating partner.” And that means . . .

That anyone you date could claim you smacked, hit or otherwise used physical force against them and petition a court to have your guns removed. But wait! That’s not all! Under the bill’s provisions your employer can also make charges of a physical altercation that would immediately remove your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (in theory) right to keep and bear arms.

You know that innocent until proven guilty thing? As 50 Cent will tell you, that doesn’t apply in domestic abuse cases; your guns goeth before the trial. What changes with this bill: the right to confront your accuser (a.k.a., the Confrontation Clause of the 14th Amendment) is toast.

Extends the prohibition against the shipment, transport, possession, or receipt of a firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to: (1) a person who is subject to a court order issued after a hearing (eliminating the requirements that the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in the hearing) with respect to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, threatening, or placing in reasonable fear of bodily injury an intimate partner, a child of such intimate partner or person, a family member even if such member had never cohabited with such person, an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person, or an elderly or dependent adult; (2) a person restrained by a court order issued at the request of an employer on behalf of its employee or at the request of an institution of higher education on behalf of its student; and (3) a court order that restrains such a person from intimidating or dissuading a witness from testifying in court.

All this because . . . it’s common sense!

The lawmakers say in a statement that the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. They say about two-thirds of women killed by a firearm in the country in 2010 were shot by an intimate partner.

Increases it from what? How many women? Define intimate partner? Does that include pimps? How many of those murders were committed with a legally owned firearm? How many of those murderers should have been incarcerated for a previous crime? I hate it when gun control advocates cherry pick stats to justify their anti-gun legislation.

As someone who used to have an eye for the ladies, as someone who’s gone through a nasty divorce (or two), I’m here to say that the odds of false accusations by a vengeance-seeking wife, partner and/or dating partner targeting your gun thing are pretty damn high. Playa. The odds of a judge ordering you to surrender your guns “just in case” are even higher.

Needless to say, it already happens. This bill would pave the way for just about anyone to “rat out” a gun owner and boom! Their guns are gone—pleasing gun control advocates and SWAT teams alike. The freedom-killing cancer of civilian disarmament unleashed by the Newtown spree killing continues to spread.


  1. avatar Crazed Java says:

    Thank goodness they’re fixing the law. Goodness knows that it was a loophole that allowed all those bad people to commit violence instead of following their restraining order. This should make things much better. [/sarc off]

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “She has been laid off and on for 7 months”


      1. avatar William Burke says:


    2. avatar wa_2a says:

      Screw off.

    3. avatar DJ says:

      She was ugly. I want a refund.

    4. avatar chuck (slave to nj) says:

      I didn’t know frumpy housewives could make that much filming themselves doing things their husbands don’t wanna see.

    5. avatar Jason says:

      How difficult would it be to filter these out? It’s a pretty simple pattern that they always follow.

  2. avatar Skyler says:

    This is bad, of course, but an ex parte restraining order is extremely temporary in nature, maybe two weeks or less. Then you have to get a full hearing to see if the restraining order is truly justified. So, it’s not like this is a permanent confiscation. It’s still a very disturbing trend in the law, but not “quite” as bad as you seem to make out.

    1. avatar tfunk says:

      You forgot to finish with “end sarc”,right? Right?????

      1. avatar Skyler says:

        Well, there’s also that pesky 10th Amendment issue.

    2. avatar John says:

      At least once, in Connecticut, a Judge sent off a firearm to be melted, due to a temporary loss of RKBA, because “She doesn’t give guns back”.

      Who’s to say that all/most/many/a few judges won’t do the exact same thing with this expansion?

    3. avatar Blue says:

      You apparently missed the point where the employer can make some stupid claim. Plus, in some states, you will have to pay transfers to get your guns back and California won’t give your ammo back. Also remember that this is a single judge at the 2 week hearing (if you get one that quick) and they may likely be a pencil whipper in the err of caution.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        How the hell is that, especially the second part, legal?

        1. Even after having been ordered by the United States Supreme Court, more than TEN years ago, the New Oreans Police Dept are in possesion of arms they confiscated illegally during the Katrina dissaster.

    4. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

      Yeah, once the police confiscate your weapons, just see how ready and willing they are to give them back.

  3. avatar TheThingThatGoesUp says:

    “The lawmakers say in a statement that the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. They say about two-thirds of women killed by a firearm in the country in 2010 were shot by an intimate partner.”

    Then maybe they should make it illegal for women to date criminals?

    Seriously, it’s already political nonsense that “domestic violence” (which need not be violent, or occur in one’s home) is the only misdemeanor that prevents one from owning a gun. Any other such crime needs to be a felony.

    It’s sugar and spice all the way down.

    “The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, as well as engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, or PASK, whose final installment was just published in the journal Partner Abuse, is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research.”


    1. avatar DonS says:

      Seriously, it’s already political nonsense that “domestic violence” (which need not be violent, or occur in one’s home) is the only misdemeanor that prevents one from owning a gun. Any other such crime needs to be a felony.
      I thought the federal criteria (as listed on 4473) was “a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year”. In Colorado, a class one misdemeanor can get you 18 months. If you’re convicted of a class one misdemeanor in Colorado, you have to answer “Yes” to 4473’s 11.c.

      1. avatar TheThingThatGoesUp says:

        “These prohibitions apply to any person who…
        Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
        Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
        Has a record of being a felon.”


        1. avatar DonS says:

          18 USC 922(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
          (1)is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

          18 USC 922(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
          (1)who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
          to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

      2. avatar TheThingThatGoesUp says:

        Oh, I see what you are saying, “Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”

        Regardless, including special provisions for “intimate partner” and “domestic violence” is still political bullshit.

  4. avatar Cliff H says:

    Excuse me, but wouldn’t it make much more sense (sorry, rhetorical) to pass federal legislation superseding state/local legislation that allowed persons who obtain such a restraining order to tool up for their own protection? If the TRO existed it would be, as now, routinely ignored. If the TRO authorized the (supposed) victim to carry a firearm due to officially recognized threats it would seem logical that they would be under much less threat of someone violating that TRO. Just sayin’.

    1. avatar darth says:

      I’ve been saying for years, since long before I became as Pro-2A as I am now, that the only smart thing to do is to hand out handguns and magazines and a few hours with a cop at the range with every TRO.

      It’s the only thing that will stop a guy (or gal) from heading home right after getting bailed out and killing their SO.

  5. avatar tfunk says:

    This is so cool…now I can accuse Nick of abusing me on our only date (HE may not remember it, but I do) and stop him from making me jealous of all the 3-gun matches he’s attending.

    The perfect plan!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The only flaw in your plan is you have to admit in legal documents that you dated Nick. Do you really want to be known as that guy?

      1. avatar tfunk says:

        I’ll take one for the team

        1. avatar jwm says:

          If you’re so willing to sacrifice for the greater good, tfunk, go bring a smile to feinsteins face. Clean the dust and debris out of her celler and make her happy. Once she’s happy tell her you’ll keep it up for her pro gun support.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      Seems to me like banning “intimate partners” would go a long ways towards protecting those women.

  6. avatar Rev. Maurice Pompitous says:

    Great, you are even more at the mercy of a vengeful spouse if you are a gun owner. I thought it couldn’t be any worse than being evicted from your home with a toothbrush and a hefty bag full of quickly gathered dirty clothes, but of course it can.

    1. avatar JeremyR says:

      Ever been run over by an angry exwife? One on whom you had a restraining order? Then be threatened with arrest by the cop who investigated eho refused to believe a woman could be the violent one? His words.

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    I thought the restraining order was the loophole? It doesnt have any protective properties whatsoever but makes the bureaucrats feel like they “did something.”

  8. avatar Layne says:

    “the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent”

    It’s impossible to deny that a gun was present after you’ve shot someone. Up until that point, you’re obviously going to lie and hide your gun. (presumably it’s a national statistic, so registries are of no concern)

  9. avatar JoshinGA says:

    Wait, so if you have a vindictive ex (more often than not this is the female half of a relationship), they can now have your firearms confiscated for no reason? Sounds like a great plan /sarc

    Maybe instead start a program offering govt subsidized guns and training to people who are fearful of violence from their ex?

    1. avatar jim says:

      I’ve seen it happen even in Texas. Co-worker left his wife because over several years she had gone from sweetly dingy to boiled-bunny psychotic, so she filed a restraining order and had his guns seized to get even with him for being dumped. Very expensive situation to get resolved.

  10. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    The road to Hell isn’t paved with good intentions, it’s paved
    with the unintended consequences of those good intentions.
    As we all know, people who have restraining orders against
    them always comply with a judges legal restraining orders.

  11. avatar Joe S. says:

    “the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent”

    Some people will look at the big number and they will get scared. If stated “…are 5x more likely” they are probably going to be less concerned.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      It’s called controlling the message….

    2. avatar DonS says:


      Increasing by 500% makes it 6x as likely, not 5x.

      Increasing by 100% doubles. Increasing by 200% triples. Etc.

  12. avatar Rob says:

    Alrighty, let me put on my criminal-cap for a moment:

    Do you really think that a piece of paper signed by a judge telling a criminal not to get close to someone is going to stop a criminal from doing just that? If you think so, then I have some gun laws in Chicago for you to look over.

    If a restraining order is taking out against a real bad guy, and I’ll tell you what is going to happen: The bad guy will ignore it, he will kick in the door, and kill you.

    You can get a thousand pieces of paper, signed by all the judges in the land, it won’t mean jack-$H!† if one has evil intentions towards you.

    If you want a real restraining order, the ones given out by the likes of Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Glock, Mr Smith and Mr. Wesson, or Mr. Sig-Sauer, among many others, will do the job a lot better than any piece of paper signed by a judge, and filled out in triplicate.

    1. avatar Skyler says:

      Well, yes, it does help. You can’t really deny it. With a restraining order, if the protected person sees the restrained person, they can call the cops and the cops can act without any other act required by the restrained person.

      Also, by keeping the two apart, it tends to keep tempers from flaring. If the (alleged or potential) abuser keeps away, then that person is less likely to get triggered into abusing.

      It won’t stop a truly determined attacker, of course not. But it does deter those that don’t intend to attack.

      1. avatar Jason says:

        It won’t stop a truly determined attacker, of course not. But it does deter those that don’t intend to attack.

        So…your argument for the effectiveness of restraining orders is that they don’t deter the people who will engage in violence despite the restraining order, but do deter the people who wouldn’t engage in violence regardless of the restraining order?

        Sounds like the kind of “success” one can only experience with government.

        1. avatar Skyler says:

          It won’t stop the psychotic who is intent on murder or maiming. It will stop the guy who can’t have a conversation with his psychotic wife without losing his temper and doing something stupid. Keeping them apart keeps the violence from happening.

          Don’t imagine that these laws will change anything for responsible adults, or the truly demented ones. It will help curb the irresponsible ones who lack self discipline, and make no mistake: Family courts are filled with this kind.

      2. avatar Mindflayer says:

        Sorry, having volunteered at a domestic and rape violence center, those restraining orders are not the defense you think they are The ones obsessed or filled with rage do not care. They will find a way to bring harm (http://bit.ly/15QSZnC) with common items, or with guns purchased off the street.

        This is exactly what people are saying it is – a weapon to be wielded buy folks who want to cause immediate financial and permanent harm to someone. I went thru a divorce a few years ago, and my ex claimed that I was “abusive”. Luckily, we were with the counselor at the time, and she recanted. (I had never laid a finger on her in 20 years.) With this bill, if she had said that to a cop, I would be toast.

      3. avatar MarcusAurelius says:

        “Can” is the operative word there. The police can arrest someone violating a restraining order but have no obligation to do so and may very well not bother and instead wander off the deal with “real” crime. They’ll be back to help out the protected person after a “real” crime has happened upon you. Of course a restraining order will likely help out a great deal convincing a jury that the protected person was, in fact, defending themselves from violence.

        They shouldn’t be called ‘restraining orders’ but instead ‘get out of jail for shooting your violent ex’ orders.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not all, and probably not even most restraining orders are issued against “criminals.” There are issued against persons accused of some threat or incident of domestic violence, some of whom are guilty of violence, some who are not. It takes very little violence to run afoul of the law–just grabbing the intimate partner, or pushing him/her is enough. That’s part of the problem–DV laws tend to err on the side of protection than on innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, DV is a real issue. Spousal spats are a common occurrence around here, particularly if the parties are drug or alcohol abusers. And there are innumerable instances of a pissed of partner killing the other; under the circumstances, focusing efforts on some level of prevention are not wholly irrational. Other than keeping an accused abuser in jail until trial, how can the government, which owes no individual duty to anybody, protect the abused? Is it better to leave them totally unprotected? Especially when police hate to respond to such calls? Obviously there will be abuses of this power; wouldn’t it be better to punish those who abuse the law than to eliminate the power to control violent behavior? What other options exist?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Right; an accusation and a crime are not the same thing. Often NOT AT ALL the same thing.

        But this Murphy character (showing generosity, he said) seems to think that rights are AUTHORITY-given, not god-given. God meaning whatever might work for you, including the dubious “natural law”.

        Nature is not in the habit of revoking its laws, but authorities are quite a different matter.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I wasn’t suggesting for a minute that theirs is an appropriate resolution to a rather intractable problem. Is there a better solution?

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    “the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent”

    Right, because no leftist politician gives a damn about domestic violent against men. There’s no money (or votes) in it.


  14. avatar In Memphis says:

    Because, ya know in my eleven years working in emergency medicine, I have never seen victims of domestic violence that were stabbed or beaten. Im sure R&B star Rihanna would be willing to say they are safe when this loophole is closed.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      Is she the chick on guns.com with a gold AK on her front “teef”?

  15. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Again, I am just wondering under what Constitutional authority they think gives the Federal government the authority to enact such laws. The Federal government is in serious need of anal adjustment.

  16. avatar brian says:

    So they’ve found a way to tie civilian disarmament to the Feminine Imperative. Nice. At this pace, you’ll need Game just to stay out of prison, never mind getting dates.

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      What’s a “date”?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        It’s a sweet, dark brown, oval fruit containing a hard stone, often eaten dried. Very tasty I’m told.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          And so “date rape” must be what happens when you try to remove the pit, right?

  17. avatar Ken Hagler says:

    Let’s say this could somehow work perfectly 100% of the time. An abused woman gets a restraining order against her abuser, who then promptly gets a restraining order against her. Now both are disarmed. Except that the macho cretin is much bigger and stronger than his victim, and doesn’t need a gun to kill her, while she does need a gun to defend herself from him.

    Ever notice how often powerful male politicians push things that make life easier and safer for abusers, rapists, and the like? Kind of makes me wonder just what they’ve been using their political power to cover up in their own lives…

    1. avatar Jason says:

      But the restraining order prevents the guy from harming the woman.

      I’m not sure exactly how they work, but I believe it has something to do with charged magnetic fields repelling each other.
      [Puts finger against earpiece.]
      What’s that? Just a piece of paper? Really? No actual protection? At all?
      [Releases earpiece.]
      Never mind then…

    2. avatar scottlac says:

      This could lead to a real “war on women” through unintended consequences. Or, are the intended after all?

  18. avatar Mark says:

    Generally, in a court case, there is a presumption of guilt simply due to the defendant being charged. This, however, takes absurdity to a new and dangerous level.
    If stupidity such as this goes into effect a simple accusation is all that is needed to remove a Constitutionally protected right on two levels that spring to mind. One, obviously, is the Second Amendment. The other is the removal of private property without due process as I would suggest that this is NOT “due process”. Think of the consequences of simply being able to accuse. Think of the possibilities disgruntled and passive aggressive folk can avail themselves of. Obama and his ilk failed to get an “assault weapon” bill passed on the Hill. This is the liberal payback- more destruction of freedom.

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

    And if you’re exonerated, how much prison time will you false accuser see?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Ask Tawana Brawley.

  20. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Is the restraining order loophole they’re trying to close the one that says that the police don’t have to enforce the restraining order?

  21. avatar Kirk says:

    BTW, that pic is of a California gun confiscation effort, which today has a mildly happy outcome: The HUSBAND of the wife who sought mental health care whose gats were confiscated a few months back had his firearms returned today, minus $600 worth of ammunition. Plus a few clams in fees. (TheBlaze.com)

    The process is the punishment. Again.

  22. avatar Alaskan Gunner says:

    14th Amendment? I think you mean the sixth…

  23. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Well guys (and gals), the solution is simple. Stop dating anyone you didn’t meet at a gun range shooting their own gun. Eventually the ladies frustrated that there are no real men willing to date them will demand the law be changed.

    Har! Har! Har! I crack myself up sometimes….

    1. avatar Blue says:

      I think this is a slippery trick to try and get some confiscations going. It will also result in ccw licenses being suspending pending the outcome.

  24. avatar Rich says:

    If your partner is getting frisky and you think it may lead to legal issues;
    1. take your firearms to a safe storage location, maybe a friends home in secret. Sorry Judge, I sold them for $1.00 or they sank in a tragic row boat accident while duck hunting. Mine were confisgated when Ex-went ballistic and lied with a charge of domestic abuse to get the kids in a bitter divorce. She had a Phd and knwe just the things to bring me down. I spent $2000.00 on an attorney and jury trial. I was found not-guilty. I went to get my guns and when they were returned after 3 months there were rusty areas. Obvioulsy stored in a moist area. Thankfully, I was able to get them back to great shape. If it were a longer time period, it could have been worse. Thus: you do not want them confisgated. BTW, Moral of the story: I was lucky. It was the best $2,000 I ever spent. I got rid of my ex and now have a wonderful wife, gun collection including some class III. Its just too easy to lose your civil rights when it comes to firearms. Plan ahead and don’t wait.

  25. avatar justbiteme says:

    WOW! I already feel safer. Thank you, thank you, for making me feel safer. MOLON LABE

  26. avatar Blair says:

    Criminals don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. In Chicago, the Cook County Sheriff’s Department’s going door to door in the suburbs, seizing guns from people who’ve lost their Right To Carry Permits. If you
    break the law, you forfeit your right to keep and bear arms.

  27. avatar Pat says:

    Funny how the libtard (democrat) men give women the power to literally remove their power and freedom (firearms).
    You morons on this forum who voted democrat…..got what you got.
    Don’t do it again.

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