A judge in Texas is using a recent Supreme Court ruling to allow domestic abusers to keep their guns
April M. Zeoli, University of Michigan and Shannon Frattaroli, Johns Hopkins University
For a large part of the history of the United States, domestic abuse was tolerated under the nation’s legal system. There were few laws criminalizing domestic violence, and enforcement of the existing laws was rare.
It was only in the past few decades that laws criminalizing domestic violence came to be widespread and enforced. But now, the U.S. is in danger of backtracking on that legal framework precisely because of the nation’s historical legacy of turning a blind eye to domestic violence.
On Nov. 10, 2022, a judge in the Western District of Texas struck down the federal law that prohibits access to guns for people subject to domestic violence protection orders. He did this based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held that, to be constitutional, a firearm restriction must be analogous to laws that were in existence when the country was founded. In other words, disarming domestic abusers violates the Second Amendment because those types of laws didn’t exist at the founding of the country.
In a separate, but related, case, the 5th U.S. Circuit of Court of Appeals on Feb 1. sided with the Texas judge, ruling that the federal ban was unconstitutional. The Justice Department has indicated that it will appeal.
We study the link between gun laws and domestic violence in the U.S. and know that backtracking on laws that prevent the perpetrators of domestic violence from getting their hands on guns will put lives at risk – the research has proved this time and time again.
Putting lives in danger
At present, federal law prohibits persons subject to final – rather than temporary – domestic violence protection orders from purchasing or possessing firearms. In addition, 39 states and the District of Columbia have similar prohibitions on their statutes, with many expanding the restrictions to include individuals under temporary, or ex parte, orders prior to a full hearing.
Ruling that these laws are unconstitutional will put mainly women and children in danger. More than 50% of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners, and most of those homicides are committed with guns. A 2003 study found that when an abusive man has access to a gun, it increases the risk of intimate partner homicide by 400%.
Women constitute the majority of victims of intimate partner homicide, and almost one-third of children under the age of 13 who are murdered with a gun are killed in the context of domestic violence.
Moreover, 68% of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence or killed an intimate partner in the mass shooting.
Enforcement of gun restrictions is spotty, with further research needed as to how systematically they are ordered and whether restricted individuals relinquish firearms they already possess. Nonetheless, research shows that firearm restrictions on domestic violence protection orders save lives. Multiple studies conclude that these laws are associated with an 8%-10% reduction in intimate partner homicide.
Specifically, there are statistically significant reductions in intimate partner homicide when the firearm restriction covers both dating partners and those subjected to temporary orders. This decrease is seen in total intimate partner homicide, not just intimate partner homicide committed with guns, nullifying the argument that abusers will use other weapons to kill.
Moreover, these laws have broad support across the country – more than 80% of respondents to two national polls in 2017 and 2019 said they favor them.
Americans – whether male or female, gun owner or non-gun owner – tend to agree that domestic abusers should not be able to purchase or possess firearms while they are subject to a domestic violence protection order. Most seem to realize that such reasonable restrictions serve the greater good of keeping families and communities safe.
A disregard for data
The ruling in Texas was based on an originalist legal argument rather than the data. Under the judge’s interpretation of the Bruen decision, because colonial law – written before a time when women could vote, let alone be protected in law from violent spouses – didn’t restrict domestic abusers’ gun rights, then it simply isn’t constitutional to do so now. In effect, the ruling, should it stand, would mean the U.S. is unable to escape the nation’s historic legal disregard for domestic violence.
It also disregards the harm that allowing domestic abusers to keep hold of guns does. Multiple studies demonstrate that domestic violence firearm restriction laws are effective and save lives.
That research shows that, should the Texas ruling stand, people who suffer abuse at the hands of an intimate partner are at greater risk of that abuse being deadly.
Lisa Geller, director of state affairs at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, contributed to this article.
April M. Zeoli, Associate Professor of Public Health, University of Michigan and Shannon Frattaroli, Professor of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
“A judge in Texas is using a recent Supreme Court ruling to allow domestic abusers to keep their guns”
What the 5th Circuit’s Ruling on this Really Means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPZUaEsWbWM
Debbie
you need to listen to this video starting at 9:30 in the video. you will like it.
A perfect example of the “Streisand Effect.” Simply stated, the only way to repackage an opened can of worms is to use a bigger can.
Let every man be armed. Including women or those who are undecided. People need to stop dumping their problems off on the Govt. All that does is increase taxes to pay for the expenses of increased protection, which we never get. But it does inflate the budgets of numerous govt agencies. Pay attention: We are getting screwed repeatedly, and it’s our own damn fault.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
government is the problem!
Damn Right !
if we got the government out of even 50% of the things they are into we would be soooo much better off
Apparently, Ms. Zeoli and Ms. Frattaroli are of the belief that a violently homicidal individual intent upon murder will be dissuaded by: a) a domestic violence restraining order, i.e., a piece of paper, and b) a form 4473 restriction, i.e., another piece of paper. I must say, I find that their novel legal theory strains credulity. Perhaps Ms. Zeoli and Ms. Frattaroli could be of better service to the public were they to devote their efforts towards making it easier for abused women to obtain firearms and relevant training in those states where such things are nigh to impossible. After all, God created man and woman, but Sam Colt made them equal.
abused women, all women. amen.
I took the time to read the brief bios of the three authoresses of this hit-piece. Two of the three are directly associated with one person, one widely known to be strongly opposed to the common individual to be in possession of any type of firearm. That name is Bloomburg. Based on their close association I’ll wager any amount at any high odds you will allow that the third is also directly linked somehow to one of that individual’s organisations. I would not trust any of the three as far as I could push a truck tractor with a fully loaded 53 foot dryvan behind it, up a four percent grade, by myself.
So what are the stats on the # of gun owners who are under protection orders? Except for the divorced ones, first thing a divorce lawyer tells her to do is get a restraining order. Don’t matter if you tuned her up or not.
Not surprising id love to see the stats of false reports of DV id be willing to bet its overwhelmingly filed by women. That ruling just prevents people from talking away rights without due process.
And that’s precisely *why* such laws should be stricken down, and ‘Bruen’ gives the justification to do so.
A battered woman (or man) needs a .38 more than a piece of paper…
I k ow for a fct that most California divorce lawyers as standard practice include the No Contact Order/restraining order in with all the other pwperwork, and almost all women simply sign that as one more document in the big pile they blndly sign. Most don’t even seem to know they signed it, let alone what it DOES.
Now if that insane state were to allow ALL their adult women to be armed as they see fit (minus any specific prohibition on that individual) then the orders might not be so common. A woman who can shoot back is far less likely to even NEED such an order, as her erstwile husband would almost certainly know she is armed and trained and skilled.
In Illinois it’s common practice plus we have the stupid FOID so the PD can check if the husband has a gun. This red flag law written by a lady who runs a website and meant well. It backfired and now the police take your guns, good luck getting them back.
Some wives use it as retaliation but all guns and usually the husband goes. The hearings about the gun were supposed to take time within a month but the time frame can be much longer.
By the time an attorney gets it all straightened out, your guns are in the PD officers collections and they aren’t giving them back. This happened to a friend of mine, he ended up losing 3 pretty nice guns.
This was quite a while ago, long before Bruen but Illinois doesn’t really follow that decision. The wife is gone and the guns have been replaced but if the wife makes an allegation that you threatened them with a gun, they take your FOID and you have to through an appeal process which can take a year alone on that plus you have a red mark on your record.
Illinois, where due process is dead.
fyi
From the MGTOW and SYSBM community. The type Women to stay away from. And keep you out of jail.
“BASED Attorney Melissa Isaak Reveals Top Red Flags in Women” 6 min long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znMadbuzkyc
GASP! Soros DAs might have to start locking people up instead of releasing them with pinky swears they won’t do it again.
Come to think of it, without having to waste hours every week visiting the same drunken, argumentative couple for the same offenses municipalities may actually be able to cut police funding. Do something about all the overdosing addicts and you’ll be able to trim cops to part-time positions.
Supposedly Texas law applies restraining orders automatically when divorce paperwork is filed,
and nothing to with violent people. If an individual has been arrested for violent assault, that in itself is a dis-qualifier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lGhz2Qaro
There are so many women who put up with men who mistreat them that the lefties are trying to protect these women from the consequences of their own choices. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t help the women rid themselves of these losers. The vast majority of men are larger and stronger than women and do not need a firearm to abuse a woman, all the government can or should do is prosecute the abuser. The battered women’s shelter exists to help them, beyond that you can not shield her from what happens if she goes back to him. Freedom is about the ability to make choices, even poor ones.
So, fundamental constitutional rights are merely optional and can be disregarded if the “data” shows people are / may be injured by giving those rights legal protection . . . .
Fine. Now do Miranda warnings, search warrants, exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence, double jeopardy, taking of property, etc.
Geller bio (https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisa-geller/) makes it clear she has no serious legal training. She’s been an anti-gun activist for virtually her entire career, so the fact that she doesn’t understand the nature of a fundamental constitutional rights is no great surprise.
Like so many like her that Dan has been highlighting recently, folks like this simply cannot wrap their head around the idea that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, not something that it optional because self-annointed “public health experts” deem them so.
lkb…Like you cannot wrap your head around the seriousness of Gun Control being rooted in racism and genocide? Thankfully instead of waiting on people fixated on tit for tat courtroom drama to come around to define Gun Control the history of Gun Control does it without you.
As for what would amount to a domestic peeing contest between two misfits the taking away their rights for all time is backdoor Gun Control.
So what is your problem with the courtroom now?
Debbie,
Without questioning, even for a second, that most gun control, historically, was rooted in racism, white supremacy, and maintaining the status quo, don’t let yourself become a one-trick pony. Bloomberg, MomsDemand, etc. certainly have their racist tendencies (ALL Leftist/fascists do), their gun control emphasis is all in the word “control”. IN FACT, they seem much more comfortable with letting a five-time violent felon out without bail than with allowing a white guy who’s fighting with his wife keep his gun.
Racism has been, historically, and remains today, a FACTOR in ‘gun control’, but it ain’t even close to the major factor. Mike Bloomberg is an insecure little shitweasel who’s afraid of guns (even though he knows literally f***-all about them), but boy is that authoritarian little shithead with the small-man complex all about CONTROL. Ditto Shannon Watts.
Not sayin’ you’re wrong, but sayin’ that you obsess about ONE aspect of the issue, to the point where you seem to overlook all others. And for the MiniMikes and Shannon the Karens out there, I think control and authoritarianism is a much larger, more compelling motivator than straight out racism (although they ARE racist AF, too). Just sayin’.
C’mon! Freedom is dangerous, and therefore does not work! Everybody knows that!
Chairman Mao said so. He also said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. And he explained that power must be kept from the hands of the proletariat to preserve the “Revolution”.
What does it matter that he was a murdering psychopathic gangster?
@lkb
“Fine. Now do Miranda warnings, search warrants, exclusion of wrongfully obtained evidence, double jeopardy, taking of property, etc.”
Yep. And “red flag” laws are the flash bag that blows the Bill of Rights right off its hinges.
*flash bang
“….backtracking on laws that prevent the perpetrators of domestic violence from getting their hands on guns will put lives at risk – the research has proved this time and time again.”
What? Whose research? Did the research prove that violent abusers become non-violent when they cannot legally obtain a firearm?
Can we absolve our society of all domestic violence simply by keeping distance between violent people and guns?
Will that work for all violent people, or only for domestically violent people.
I love simple solutions!! I am simple-minded!!
Guns are easy to use, fairly portable, and effective. Why downgrade to something less effective unless the more effective (gun) is for some reason taken off the table? But when the more effective tool is for whatever reason removed from the table, anythong else will do. Women have been murdered by their “ex” with the use of maches and petrol, large swimming pools and lakes, rope, chais, “rifgging” cars to catch fire or explode, burning down her house with her inside it at oh dark thirty, quiet esy to hide edged weapons, hired hit-men, and I don’t need to waste any more tme lising more. If a guy wants her dead, guess what she’s soon enough gonna be?
quote———–On Nov. 10, 2022, a judge in the Western District of Texas struck down the federal law that prohibits access to guns for people subject to domestic violence protection orders.———-quote
If this is not pure insanity I do not know what would be.
Of course the Far Right Nut Cases will say the woman should get a gun and walk out into the street like in the Wild West and have a Wyatt Earp type shootout with her estranged husband. Even in Earps day he was hauled into court more than once because he killed people when he should not have. Back then just like today a cop like Earp could and often did get away with cold blooded murder and Earp was as guilty as sin on this one. And men killing their wives back then were always given the benefit of the doubt.
quote———–We study the link between gun laws and domestic violence in the U.S. and know that backtracking on laws that prevent the perpetrators of domestic violence from getting their hands on guns will put lives at risk – the research has proved this time and time again.———-quote
AND QUOTE ALSO———–More than 50% of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners, and most of those homicides are committed with guns. A 2003 study found that when an abusive man has access to a gun, it increases the risk of intimate partner homicide by 400%.———QUOTE
Anyone who would argue with this should be locked up in the nearest nut house. The Far Right in the U.S. have gone completely off the rails.
Civilized Europeans have asked me many times “What in the hell is going on in the U.S. with shootouts on the streets running rivers of blood everyday, are all you people on drugs or what???????
Even in the 1960’s when we college kids had protests over the insanity of the Vietnam War the only violence and murder that was being committed was by the Thug Far Right Cops and the National Guard gone completely out of control but the average citizen was not shooting it out in the streets and murdering their wives every day because supper was not ready on time or someone cut you off in traffic or took your parking place. This was almost unheard of.
I might also add that far more States back then outlawed carrying loaded guns in cars or on one’s person. Gee could that have had anything to do with people not pulling out guns at the drop of a hat and shooting it out on the road. Even George Zimmerman almost got blown away by a road rage nut case.
“Anyone who would argue with this should be locked up in the nearest nut house.”
We don’t have “nut houses” any longer. But we do have “restraining orders” which supposedly have the force of law. And we all know that no violent criminal would break the law, right?
Awful: Woman Murdered While Waiting For Gun License To Protect Herself From Ex-Boyfriend
“When Carol Bowne felt the threat of domestic violence, the petite hairdresser took steps to protect herself. The Berlin Township woman got a restraining order against a former boyfriend, installed security cameras and an alarm system to her home and began the months-long process of obtaining a handgun, friends said.
“But it wasn’t enough. Bowne, 39, was stabbed to death in the driveway of her Patton Avenue home …”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/06/draft-n2008956
That was just an “isolated incident,” right dacian? Oh, wait …
More Women and Children Killed By The Brady Bill
” … only the memories of these young and vibrant Americans, once alive and now dead, will survive to see another Christmas or celebrate another birthday. This is the reality of the Brady Bill.”
http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html
Why do you hate women, dacian?
to Man with no sense
quote—————Awful: Woman Murdered While Waiting For Gun License To Protect Herself From Ex-Boyfriend———-quote
Are you really that dense??? Do you realize you just contradicted yourself. If the cops had taken away all of the boyfriend’s guns then he would not have had his gun to kill her. Its called a red flag law.
So all the women murdered by knife don’t count? In a civilized country if a woman had cause for a restraining order and no gun the cops should issue her a revolver until such time as the situation was sorted.
“If the cops had taken away all of the boyfriend’s guns then he would not have had his gun to kill her.”
dacian, you can’t read. (Why am I not surprised?)
“Well, that process left a woman dead Wednesday, stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend …”
Why are you opposed to threatened women being able to protect themselves? Why do you hate women and minorities?
D dipshit if a man just beats her to death he will get less time. I just snapped. If he gets a gun proves premeditation. Which way seems better to check out to you?
lild
maybe some day you will understand,
when your boyfriend is stomping on your warped little head
can you pull your head out of Bloomberg backside to read ??
she was stabbed to death, that’s a knife you lackwit, not a firearm.
BTW, how did her restraining order hold up ?
not worth the paper it was printed on, just like you.
Take your Midol.
You were born in the late 80’s, dacian. All you know about Viet Nam or college is what you’ve seen in the movies.
Oooh!!! dacian, let me help you!!!
“If this is not pure insanity I do not know what would be.”
Read ANY of your own comments, dipshit, and you will see pure insanity writ large.
Glad to be of assistance – I get brownie points for helping the handicapped.
By the way, there’s a concept, used to be quite important as part of our Constitutional system (not so much, these days) called “due process”. Ever heard of it, you little Leftist/fascist/authoritarian worm????? Nah, didn’t think so. You and MinorLiar never met a violation of rights you wouldn’t support in favor of your cult religion of authoritarian Leftism.
Go violate yourself, twerp.
“If this is not pure insanity I do not know what would be.”
dacian, go look in the mirror.
One common issue was obliquely addressed above, but I’ll flesh it out a bit.
Friend’s older brother had been married, and ended up not being married to her any more, not his decision. Unknown to him (her ex-husband) the lawyer had included a restraining order (this WAS in California…..) He had found a small rental place, and used that as his address for service, papers summonses etc. After a while he went to visit his younger brother and ended up taking the spare bedroom in their house. After a couple years, my friend gets a visit from the local Shireman informing him (my friend) that his new household member is a Prohibited Person because of the restraining order he never received because he had moved and the process server just came back and said “can’t find him”. So now my friend had to deal with having a prohibited Person in his home He had to PROVE to the sheriff that his new resident had no access to guns by any means. Funny cause I’d been shooting out in the yard with this prohibited person neither of us aware of his “spayshul status”.
The man was not violant lived now three states away from his ex, had no idea the order against him existed, had no desire to harm her or even see her ever. Had he been driving in his brother’s car with a firearm in the trunk and been stopped, it would be felony time.
This new finding is necessary and proper; As this lawyer said in the excellent clip bove, the law can and perhaps should disarm someine CONVICTED of violence or otherwise adjudicated after proper proceedings to be a specific danger to the named person then fine, take his guns away. But as a matter of course? NOWAY. And this is the drill with these gungrabbers.ANY means to disarm NYbody, we MUST do it, cuz gunzzm baaaadd.
I’m not going to be able to attend my State of The Union Address tonight, I wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back.
Don’t lie, Senile Joe,
IF you wrenched your shoulder, it was either from bending over to far to sniff some little girl, ar excessive onanism.
“More than 50% of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners, and most of those homicides are committed with guns”
Sounds to me like a ten day waiting period in California is akin to a death sentence for a woman having to wait to exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
Honestly more curious about the other 50% as the one that gets the attention is arguably bad at decision making by default.
‘No one helped her’: NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit
https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit
Woman Killed While Waiting for Gun Permit for Protection
https://fox17.com/news/local/woman-killed-while-waiting-for-gun-permit-for-protection
Police: Woman shot, killed Orlando man she had protective order against
https://www.wesh.com/article/police-woman-shot-killed-orlando-man-she-had-protective-order-against/39264009
“This article is republished from The Conversation.”
Wish I’d known that before I started reading. Would have saved my time.
“A disregard for data”
That describes pretty much every progressive liberal Democrat study. They draw their conclusions ahead of time, then they pay a “researcher” to make up numbers to fit their conclusions. We don’t need no steenking DATA to complete our studies!
…………..that describes the consultants that clean up our reports scarily accurately.
research data
and statistics:
if they didnt bring bruen into this world
then it stands to reason
that they wont remove it from this world either
The guy in TX is an evil doer, no doubt about it. And if he was in jail, after conviction, this wouldn’t be an issue.
I don’t understand the notion that domestic violence is some special sort of violence. Punching out your spouse at home is no different from punching out a stranger in a bar. Both should result in prison terms for the offenders. If the attack threatens the victim’s life or health, defense with deadly force is justified.
“A judge in Texas is using a recent Supreme Court ruling to allow domestic abusers to keep their guns”
That is nothing compared to the Chinese puppet in the Whitehouse, who said he’s going to ban all assault rifles”, tonight on national television….
Here is a question that deserves serious attention. Is doing this any worse than allowing unfettered access to out country by illegals who are criminals, drug and human traffickers? Seems to me those things are illegal and no one is paying much attention to that. Pure hypocrisy.
“A judge in Texas is using a recent Supreme Court ruling to allow domestic abusers to keep their guns”
that is 100% false.
a domestic abuser can still be prohibited from firearms posession under a domestic abuse situation, in all 50 states, without a ‘restraining order’ and without having been convicted of the charge. They just can’t do it by “restraining order” without due process of having been convicted of the charge.
“More than 50% of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners, and most of those homicides are committed with guns”
thats not actually true in the context in which they are framing it in terms of this ruling. most women killed are killed before a ‘restraining order’ and some are killed after a ‘restraining order’ and the majority killed are not killed with a firearm. what this really is, a biased interpretation and presentation of the data – its basically actually 50% of the women killed with a firearm by ‘intimate partners’ are ‘obviously’ killed with a firearm but the stats include those ‘intimate partner’ victims who act in legal justified self defense using a firearm AKA justified homicide which is not murder. the typical anti-gun conflating ‘homicide’ to always mean murder to present a false picture.
In addition to my above, and expansion upon the point:
National stats for the U.S. also do not support their assertion implication that 50% of all domestic assault victim women are ‘murdered’ with a firearm.
~60% of the national firearm homicides in stats are valid legal self/home/other defense by DGU (AKA justified homicide). This is not murder.
~18 of the national firearm homicides in stats are criminal-on-criminal. This is a combination of murder or some form of ‘man slaughter’.
~23% of the national firearm homicides in stats is actual murder. Some of this is domestic violence related and some not domestic violence related. ~10% of this ~23% is domestic violence related and it is from this the “50%” is derived, its (about) “50%” of that ~23%.
clarification for : “~23% of the national firearm homicides in stats is actual murder” – not including criminal-on-criminal. and correction – the ~23% should have been ~22%
Clarification for: “~60% of the national firearm homicides in stats are valid legal self/home/other defense by DGU (AKA justified homicide). This is not murder.” – this includes justified legal police shootings which is about ~10% of national firearms homicides stats.
In further addition: Only about 8% of criminals, which includes ‘domestic abusers’, use a firearm to actually inflict harm in some form including murder. In the overall ‘pool’ of violent crime with firearms in the country ‘domestic abusers’ with firearms barely make a ripple.
In short, for all I wrote, the “April M. Zeoli, University of Michigan and Shannon Frattaroli, Johns Hopkins University” is BS and intentionally biased to paint a picture that is not true and this Texas ruling does not have the effect they claim.
“~18 of the national firearm homicides…”
Is suppose to be “~18% of the national firearm homicides…”
Note for “~60% of the national firearm homicides in stats are valid legal self/home/other defense by DGU (AKA justified homicide). This is not murder.” – this includes justified legal police shootings which is about ~10% of national firearms homicides stats.” — the ~60% also includes ‘domestic abuse’ victims who used a firearm to defend them selves or family from the abuser.
to the lying Booger Brain
Quote——– its basically actually 50% of the women killed with a firearm by ‘intimate partners’ are ‘obviously’ killed with a firearm but the stats include those ‘intimate partner’ victims who act in legal justified self defense using a firearm AKA justified homicide which is not murder. ———–quote
You are a bold faced liar. The studies showed that women were being killed by their partners not men being killed by women and did not show men acting in self-defense killing women.
The only proven liar around here is you, dacian?
Anybody disagree with me? Anyone?
I disagree.
A liar is one thing. A mentally-ill, pathological liar is quite another. dacian is pathological.
I accept your correction, Man.
@dacain
evidently you don’t know what ‘intimate partner’ means.
Plus, you are not only 100% wrong but you perpetuate a false myth.
Oh and fact: 48% of male ‘intimate partners’ experience some form of violence and injury, including death, from their ‘intimate partners’. About 26% of those violent intimate partners inflicting harm are female.
In short, you are a liar.
Learn to read, learn to comprehend what you read, and stop using confirmation bias, learn the English language and how to use it, learn what research is, and stop exhibiting your hatred of woman.
.40 cal,
“Learn to read, learn to comprehend what you read, and stop using confirmation bias, learn the English language and how to use it, learn what research is, and stop exhibiting your hatred of woman.”
SERIOUSLY, .40 cal???? Why not just ask him to sprout wings and learn to fly? He’s a lot more likely to do THAT than any of the things you were asking him to do. dacian is incapable of intellectual function. I am shocked that a brain that inadequate can even manage the autonomic functions. I suspect he keeps an homonculus on his shoulder to remind him to breathe.
“Nonetheless, research shows that firearm restrictions on domestic violence protection orders save lives. Multiple studies conclude that these laws are associated with an 8%-10% reduction in intimate partner homicide.”
That’s not true.
What the data shows is that it just so happens that a percentage of those restricted by such laws tend to obey the law by choice not because the law exists. It hasn’t saved any lives, its just the person roaming free under the laws or ‘restraining’ order has chosen to obey the law or restraining order instead of choosing to further victimize the ‘victim’. If the person restricted by such law or restraining order was a threat and chose to remain that threat they still presented the same threat while restricted by the law or restraining order if they were not confined in jail/prison, and the choice was there’s to choose to inflict harm or not and the law or restraining order does nothing to prevent them from making that choice.
These idiots know that too. Look at the crafty language used to further paint a false picture – for example this > “these laws are associated” … well yeah, you could say the law is “associated” by its existence but in reality the law doesn’t stop anyone from making the choice to not obey the law or ‘restraining order’ and enact violence if the abuser is roaming free so in reality the law or ‘restraining order’ is not actually protective and is reactive after the fact of the harm if the person chooses to enact violence.
to clarify: in other words its the same old anti-gun false logic lie that coorelation=causation.
once again… correlation DOES NOT equal causation and can not.
to Booger Brain the bold face demented liar
quote———-if the abuser is roaming free ———quote
So in your demented view we should do nothing and not issue a restraining order and not take the guns from the abuser. Your mind is so warped you do not even realize that your rant is totally off the rails. See a shrink.
Not what he said. And you’re the expert on mental illness, dacian. It hangs off you like a fog.
@dacian
“So in your demented view we should do nothing and not issue a restraining order and not take the guns from the abuser. Your mind is so warped you do not even realize that your rant is totally off the rails. See a shrink.”
I never said that.
in fact of you will look back some in another post in these comments you will find where I posted there are ways to do this without restraining orders in domestic abuse situations.
stop it with your delusions and lies.
“That research shows that, should the Texas ruling stand, people who suffer abuse at the hands of an intimate partner are at greater risk of that abuse being deadly.”
False.
the ‘risk’ is not greater because the same risk still exists as existed before the Texas ruling. It existed because the ‘restricted’ person was still roaming free so in reality the risk was still there and the ‘restraining order’ or law was not actually protective. If the person restricted by such law or restraining order was a threat and chose to remain that threat they still presented the same threat thus risk while restricted by the law or restraining order if they were not confined in jail/prison.
to further clarify to add: its also same old anti-gun false logic lie that coorelation=causation.the
once again… correlation DOES NOT equal causation and can not.
in fact, overall, the whole thing is filled with the same old anti-gun false logic lie that coorelation=causation.
to booger brain who is in immediate need of a psychiatrist
quote————-“That research shows that, should the Texas ruling stand, people who suffer abuse at the hands of an intimate partner are at greater risk of that abuse being deadly.”. —————-quote
You are so far gone mentally you do not even understand this basic 4th grade level statement. You can scream from the rooftops but the statement holds true and when there is a gun in the home or the abuser has a gun the risk is astronomically high he will use that gun on his wife or partner proving possession of guns makes the relationship less safe not more safe. That is exactly why the gun should be confiscated by law enforcement.
But you can never accept these basic facts because you have admitted you seem to have a hobby of going out and shooting people which you admitted happened on two different occasions. Was it your ex-partner or wife you shot??????
OK. This is a classic case of projection. I drove para transit for 3 years after my first retirement. I carried folks exactly like dacian every day. In what was called a ‘cage car’. Basically a retired cop crown vic with the cage still in place in the back.
We used it to transport folks that could not be safely transported any other way. Folks like dacian that would actually try to step out of a ‘normal’ vehicle at freeway speeds.
I used to go to the county jail and pick up dacians from the medical wing and take them to a secure mental health facility once they had been seen by a judge.
dacian, why do you hate women so much to want to subject them to a system that clearly wasn’t working?
you need some serious mental health treatment.
@dacian
“But you can never accept these basic facts because you have admitted you seem to have a hobby of going out and shooting people which you admitted happened on two different occasions. Was it your ex-partner or wife you shot??????”
really?
just where and when did I admit that? what ex-partner?
I’ve never admitted doing that because I didn’t. I’ve had several defense incidents, one of them was saving my wife from two animals who were trying to abduct and rape and kill her. the others were just as necessary to save life. I had to, and you know why? its because crazy people like you are ‘woke’ and let these animals run around preying on society and when they do get caught your craziness inherent in all liberal ‘woke’ let’s them back out again to do the same thing.
stop lying dacian, get some mental health help.
It’s interesting that they admit that domestic violence is committed without guns as well, yet fail to see that this fact means that domestic violence is not being properly addressed since a proper approach would reduce all varieties of domestic violence roughly evenly.
When I was in grad school I was part of a group of guys who organized and maintained a protective watch for a gal whose ex-boyfriend was let put on bail despite the fact that he both threatened to kill her and had the ability to do so. The judge just imposed a restraining order and said that was sufficient protection for her.
We didn’t actually catch him but we did scare him off after he threw a brick through her window (she wasn’t there but was staying a quarter mile away across campus), causing him to flee on foot because we blocked his car. On foot, in the snow, he was easily found by the police.
He was already a felon and thus was forbidden to have a gun; on top of that his conditions of bail forbade any weapon of any kind. By the judge’s reasoning, that meant the brick was the worst he could do, right? There was a protective order, so he couldn’t possibly be armed and dangerous….
When they caught him he had a .45, a .38, a knife like a Bowie, a switchblade, and a machete. In his car there were more goodies, including another large knife, a butcher knife, a box of emergency flares, a can of gasoline, and a pack of wedges for holding doors open — or holding them shut — plus a hammer for tapping them in tight.
Less than a week out of lock-up, he already had over a half-dozen items it was unlawful for him to have plus a set of materials indicating deadly intent.
The moral of the story is obvious even though one of our professors had to explain it to the judge: you don’t turn wild predators loose among lambs; if a restraining order was thought necessary then bail should have been denied.
A footnote to the story is that he later apologized profusely: he’d been after her because he thought she had helped get him locked up, but when they threw him back in with no bail he found out from a fellow jail bird that it wasn’t his ex at all. And that just emphasizes the point: most violent felons aren’t very clear thinkers, which means they don’t bother to stop and investigate whether the person they’re mad at is actually guilty, they just assault first and maybe someday ask questions later — so LOCK THEM UP!
until convicted, they’re not ” domestic abusers” vs ” accused”.
I wonder what other Due Process Protections the Progressitards wish to remove because ” feelings”
…. perhaps,the courts ought to pick up the pace of the hearing process between complaints being filed and the issuance of a restraining order….and perhaps the frivolous complaints should be dealt with rightfully as the perjurious acts that they are and real charges should befall those who abuse the process
One should never lose their rights absent a conviction
Comments are closed.