The NRA Wants To Solve Domestic Violence By Arming Victims. It Probably Won’t Work the huffingpost.com headline proclaims. “Adding guns to an already violent situation creates the potential for disaster” the subhead adds. Let’s start with that . . .
To be fair to the author, Huffpo scribe Melissa Jeltsen (above), SEO-crazed editors usually write the headlines. In this case, one who wants readers to believe that the NRA is naïve enough to think that legislation providing additional self-defense options for abuse victims could “solve” domestic violence.
Unfortunately, there are some warped individual who believe that physical abuse is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with their problems. There always will be individuals who will use their intimate partners as their punching bags.
[Please note that I’m not discounting the corrosive effects of mental and emotional abuse, but unless accompanied by physical abuse, neither typically calls for self-defense using deadly force.]
Second, “adding guns” to otherwise violent situations can indeed lead to disaster (or avert it, as shown by the 4,000 or so daily defensive gun uses in this country). But instances of domestic violence (DV) are hardly average “violent situations.”
Typically, in a DV scenario, you have an abuser (often significantly bigger and stronger than their victim) who instigates the violence, and a victim who is, well, victimized.
“Allowing” the victim to exercise their natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and constitutional right to carry the self-defense weapon of their choice creates the potential not for disaster, but for preventing it. Huffpo’s Jeltsen doesn’t see it that way:
Controversial gun laws that went into effect in two states earlier this month purport to protect domestic violence victims by arming them against their abusers.
Purported? Controversial? When we first passed the Minnesota Personal Protection Act in 2003, it contained an emergency permit clause (624.714 Subd. 11a). The State of Ohio issues emergency permits with “evidence of imminent danger” (like police reports, restraining orders, etc.). And in Wisconsin:
A person who believes they need a license immediately may petition a court in the county where he or she resides for an emergency license. A court may issue an emergency license if the court determines it is necessary to protect the person from death or great bodily harm unless it knows that the person is ineligible for a license. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(9r)(a).
Then there’s North Carolina:
In emergencies, a sheriff may issue a temporary permit to an individual when the sheriff has reasonable belief that the individual’s safety, the safety of his/her property, or the safety of the individual’s family is in immediate danger …
In Colorado, C.R.S. 18-12-209 states:
Notwithstanding any provisions of this part 2 to the contrary, a sheriff, as provided in this section, may issue a temporary emergency permit to carry a concealed handgun to a person whom the sheriff has reason to believe may be in immediate danger.
The Michigan Compiled Laws, 28.425a(4) provides:
A county clerk shall issue an emergency license to carry a concealed pistol to an applicant if the individual has obtained a personal protection order … or to an applicant if a county sheriff determines that there is clear and convincing evidence to believe the safety of the applicant or the safety of a member of the applicant’s family or household is endangered …
As for using a temporary restraining order as a permit to carry, California — yes California — has such a law! The California Penal Code Section 25600.(a) states:
A violation of Section 25400 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that person is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person who has been found to pose a threat to the life or safety of the person who possesses the firearm.
Kentucky bridges the gap between TRO as a permit and temporary emergency permits with KRS 403.754, providing that:
A petitioner for an order of protection granted under KRS 403.715 to 403.785 may apply for a temporary permit to carry a concealed deadly weapon on or about his or her person into those places and under the same conditions as a person holding a carry concealed deadly weapon license issued under KRS 237.110.
The Minnesota law has been on the books (sort of [1]) since 2003, I don’t know how long the other four states (just the ones I found in a quick web search, please let me know in the comments if there are others) have had their laws in place.
It seems obvious that, despite Ms. Jeltsen’s Chicken Little cries, the sky has not, is not, and will not fall. But she continue with her hysteria nevertheless:
Firearms are the most commonly used weapons in domestic homicides. In the U.S., a woman is killed by an intimate partner wielding a gun every 16 hours.
According to the link, the AP arrived at this horrific stat by analyzing data from 2006 – 2014. Digging a little deeper, there’s a lot more going on than first appears. You know, context.
During that same time period, every 7.3 hours a woman was shot dead by a non-romantic partner, and every five hours a woman was murdered with something other than a firearm (SOTF).
In fact, during that same period, a man — yes, a man — was murdered with SOTF every 2.5 hours. One “child or teen” accidentally drowned every 9.5 hours.
In the 10 years from 2006 – 2015, among “seasoned citizens” (70 and older), a member of that group dies from an accidental fall every 25 minutes. In other words, in the time one woman was murdered by a romantic partner, more than 33 elders died by falling.
I’m sorry Ms. Jeltsen, where should we be putting our efforts?
Critics of the NRA say arming an abused women at a time of distress will only make it more likely that someone will die or be seriously injured ― whether it’s the victim, her children or her abuser. And if she does use a gun, they warn, she may end up in prison for the crime.
True that; thanks to the efforts of people like Jeltsen and HuffPo, not to mention the Brady Bunch, EveryTown, Felonious Mayors Against All Guns [2], and the Violence Propagation Prevention Center and their ilk, in many states armed self-defense is almost (almost I said) as dangerous as not fighting back.
Because of their ongoing efforts to block and roll back Stand Your Ground laws across the country, many states still have a “duty to retreat” for victims before they can use deadly force in self-defense.
In addition, the direct and indirect support these groups give to anti-gun prosecutors makes it more likely that a woman (or anyone) who is forced to use a firearm in self-defense — no matter how clearly justified — will wind up facing prosecution, thus ensuring that, even if they avoid prison, their lives will be destroyed by the emotional and economic strains of a court battle; what our own Dean Weingarten so artfully describes as “punishment by process.”
Obviously, arming victims isn’t going to “solve” the problem of domestic violence. The best we can hope for: it will allow some of its victims to survive and break free of their abusers. A hope Ms. Jeltsen and her those of like minds are happy to extinguish in exchange for some vague notion of pubic safety.
[1] In MN gunnies refer to the Personal Protection Act as “the law so nice we passed it twice” since a liberal court threw out the first version of shall-issue on a legislative rules technicality. This resulted in such a storm of outrage that, as my House Rep. (a staunch anti) told me, legislators were so busy dealing with us that they literally could get no work done until they announced the reintroduction of the PPA.
[2] They say they are only against the illegal ones, but since they want to make them all illegal, this is a much better name.
I’m all for battered women arming up to defend themselves. That said, it’s a really bad idea to introduce a gun to a situation if you’re not physically and emotionally capable of pulling the trigger. A gun on which you can’t pull the trigger is a gun you’re giving to your attacker/abuser to use against you.
I do suspect that a lot of, if not most, domestic abuse victim’s biggest problem is that they are psychologically incapable of defending themselves, not that they are unarmed. I have long been a proponent of more spartan education. Train people not to be victims from childhood.
For years and years I have heard this complete nonsense about having firearms taken from a woman and “used against her by her abuser.” Apparently she should nice comply with being stabbed, strangled, beaten to death, or shot so that her poor abuser won’t be traumatized by taking a firearm from her when he could do the job by other means.
Name ONE INCIDENT where this occurred. I see your troll, raise it with a good solid chum, and call. Fish or cut bait, and don’t make appeals to emotion. Those of us who have either known victims of domestic violence or survived it ourselves don’t need some sanctimonious twit trying to protect us stupid, emotional, weak little women from ourselves.
Jason – You might wanna do a “nut check” after that response. Yours just may well have been torn off.
Nah, they weren’t torn off, they fell off due to atrophy!
Didn’t someone already fisk that so-called “study” that the AP or some other pseudo-liberal rag “concluded” as proof that disarming DV victims is better, when in all reality it proved the exact opposite?
Huffpost recently admitted that they were too partisan and they plan on remedying this by taking a bus tour (not making this up) of middle America to stop in various cities and talk to the yokels. My guess is the first headline that goes up when they get back is “We went to flyover country and found a bunch of scared, ignorant white people.”
Meh. Huffpo is to the left what Breitbart is to the right. No little tour is going to change that. There’s simply too much money to be made in pandering to a base.
That’s kind of how I feel about it, but the fact that they admitted it publicly was a pretty big step in my opinion.
Actually Breitbart would be the internet FOX. Huffpo would be the internet Pravda high.
“Huffpost recently admitted that they were too partisan and they plan on remedying this by taking a bus tour (not making this up) of middle America to stop in various cities and talk to the yokels.”
To HuffPo this probably mean trips to Malibu or Long Island.
Don’t confuse the Hamptons (Hollywood) with the rest of Long Island. Although, thinking about it, there are probably more firearms on Security protecting these dolts than the rest of L.I. has.
And I’ll bet that nobody will talk with them for more than 30 seconds, because the condescension will become too thick to breathe.
My bet is they end up pissing off a lot of people by declaring them “ists” of some kind (sex, race, etc.)
I saw all sorts of abuse when I worked for rural communities council years back. Too many victims were so far gone into accepting abuse they probably would not have fought back with a firearm.
Please note I am not saying to not give them guns but when both sides are drunk, drugged or both it’s always messy.
Really RCC? So back when you worked on the set of the Texas Chainsaw murders, you found the fictional victims were too resigned to fight back, and over at Deliverance they were “both drunk.” Well, I saw more domestic violence, and more intoxication of all sorts in my first six months in the liberal, enlightened SF Bay Area than I had in several decades in outer Podunk. I was rather impressed by the shootouts in SF and Oakland.We didn’t have that back home.
Kindly take your patronizing twaddle and cloud of smug and go elsewhere. Urban America needs you. We really don’t need to here from you on the virtues of disarming us peasants and hicks.
BTW – like more than a few hicks I hold an advanced degree from a prominent urban academic institution. Your implication that those of us in urban areas are a bunch of drunks is insulting and a lie.
Gotta respond to this. RCC is right, a lot of visible abuse happens in ethnic communities where constant drunkenness and drug taking (can’t call it abuse – they’re using the drugs just how they were meant to be used) and “wife” beating are the norm. By “wife” I mean the common law spouse they’ve been banging in both senses since puberty. I saw one couple on a regular basis, and i actually watched the female’s head change shape through all the beatings. Yet every time she went to hospital then the women’s refuge, she would always run out to his car when he drove by. At one time I went to visit when they moved, and the entire neighborhood came out chanting “f–k off” to prevent me from doing my job.
These families (with five to six children in each one) got the attention because they are on public assistance. I personally went into thousands of their homes to assess their entitlements. So I know what I’m talking about. I can’t speak about the homes in more genteel parts of town, as most of those folks aren’t on public assistance. But I do believe the incidence of domestic abuse is far more widespread than what even I saw. So there are a lot of women (and some men) being regularly beaten as a way of life. Would those people be better off if they were armed? Probably not. They are victims through and through, and have accepted their lot in life. They would probably only turn the gun on themselves.
But for a human being with an actual spine, one that has a concept of rights and obligations, armed self defense is a valid thing. Most of us would rather face the consequences in Court if we had to defend ourselves or loved ones from a physical attack, using whatever means was at hand. People cowed into terror cannot defend themselves, they cannot deny their oppressors the pleasure of using their fists. That’s simply how it is.
In saying that, I did visit at least two women who were later found to have buried their abusive husbands in their back yards. They were very sad, depressed women, but had a gleam of hope in their eyes. This did not last long after they were caught and sent to jail. Their sentences were a bit shorter than the average, though. The problem for jurors (and the general public) is that if they do not personally witness or experience abuse first hand, they cannot conceive that it happens, so they have little sympathy for the victims who do stand up to their own personal monsters. But it does happen. I have seen the results first hand. It is not pretty. And a bullet is as good a way to end it as any. If governments started giving weapons and firearms training to abused women, there would be a lot more deserving corpses around. And maybe a little more respect from men in general.
Disaster for who?
Hopefully, it’s disaster for the POS doing the abusing.
I hate rude behavior in a man – Won’t tolerate it – Capt Woodrow F. Call
What goes unspoken in every one of these stories about abused women is that as victims, they are doing their job. Abandoning the victim role is a betrayal to all the other victims. Victims of domestic violence enable and enhance government intervention in their daily lives, all as a token of a caring, benevolent government (at whatever level) interested in seeing to it that victims are given safety, supportive counseling, an explanation for why the victims cannot manage their own lives (because, they are, after all, victims), haven from making tough decisions that affect themselves and their children, and continued hope that by doing nothing their lives as victims just might change.
Victims serve as a vital component of government. Without victims, can you imagine how many otherwise unemployable people would be without jobs, becoming victims themselves? Assuming the a general ratio of employee to victim (the bureaucracy isn’t just some minor gaggle of overworked nannies) of at least two to one, the effect on unemployment could affect an entire community.
Honor victims, they are important to your well being.
/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/
Ok, everyone got it, now?
“and continued hope that by doing nothing their lives as victims just might change.” – Best line.
How many “battered women” or “abused spouses” still share a house with their abuser? How many would open the door if their abuser knocked? How many share custody with their abuser? There’s a very real chance that if they’ve taken it this long that a gun won’t change their mindset. Not saying that they should be disarmed, just wondering how many will pull the trigger if they need to. Guns are great but they aren’t magic talismans.
If you are correct, how many of these victims really have the heart to harm, much less kill their abuser? If the “victim” has not already remedied the situation with a different deadly weapon, I really doubt having a gun will alter the situation. There will be a few, here and there, who stop believing things will just get better on their on. These few just might have the stomach to end a life, but overall…..meh.
No matter how few may be affected, they should have the right. And don’t forget that a woman continuously abused for over a decade may still shoot the sucker just started pounding on her son or daughter.
I knew a woman who fled across several states with her mother to Corvallis, Oregon to escape her abusive former spouse. She not only didn’t share a house with him, she didn’t share a state with him.
Due to the complete irresponsibility and deliberate malice of a campus employee, he was able to locate her as he was notified of her presence as part of a financial aid situation, despite urgent indicators in her file that this should never happen.
She and her mother were murdered.
Any further questions?
Please stop generalizing from the pathetic poster children held up by “domestic victim advocates.” Without pathetic professional victims, the employees of those agencies would have to find real employment that required them to work for their salaries.
An abused woman CANNOT count on the criminal justice system to protect her from an abusive spouse or boyfriend who is determined to do her harm. Being on the muzzle end of a firearm CAN. “Back in the day” when I was a street cop, I’d tell a beaten spouse or girlfriend that she was going to have to decide if she was a person or a punching bag if she didn’t want the abuser charged. Now, they don’t have a choice. BTW, there were times when the abuse was so blatant that I wasn’t above agitating the abuser into going after ME, which invariably ended with a trip to the ER for stitches after a “wood shampoo” and to the station for processing an “assaulting an officer” charge. An “abusive police practice”? Yeah, probably. Was it “justice”? Ain’t no doubt in my mind.
“Please stop generalizing from the pathetic poster children held up by “domestic victim advocates.” ”
Always fascinated how some here lose the ability to read and comprehend, becoming just as irrationally emotional at the gun grabbers.
First, I do sincerely hope the two women you described were not relatives.
Second, in the comment you responded to I was posing a question about the reality of the idea that a gun would solve all problems of domestic abusers gone completely out of control. The question is asking for consideration that no matter how powerfully armed, a victim of domestic violence may be actually in no position to actually save their lives, although we types here have assured them a gun would put an end to their nightmare.
Knee-jerk reaction about “professional victims” doesn’t move the conversation forward, especially when that was nowhere in the comment that put you in a hover.
Also, I did note elsewhere, to a different comment about a two step resolution to the DV issue, too many think only in terms of cohabiting individuals, where the victim remains in the domicile, suffering repeated abuse. So, I asked a question about an option for victims who relocate, and are then still attacked by their abuser.
Neither of the questions implies a woman should never be allowed to arm herself, only that proposed “remedies” should be something other than the “It should have been a DGU”. A somewhat unhelpful meme on par with “Common sense gun control”.
Just ask a cop what their worst call is. They probably will answer a Domestic Dispute. More often than not the “Victim” will turn on the cop or anyone else that tries to interfere or help. I agree with most that a gun may not help and probably would be worse if the victim is not willing to pull the trigger.
The only problem that I see with arming women who are domestic violence victims: many such women are often unwilling to do much if anything for their own well being. At best, a firearm is useless to such women. At worst, this is the one scenario where the aggressor really does have a good chance of taking the firearm away from the defender and using it against her.
Nevertheless, neither you nor I should dictate to domestic violence victims whether or not they can acquire/possess a firearm for self-defense. That is their choice. The most that we can do is educate domestic violence victims, encourage/empower them to defend themselves, and offer to train them.
I agree with HuffPo — domestic violence victims should be disarmed, so they can die whimpering instead of being able to fight back and live.
Well that’s the idea. Fighting back doesn’t produce victims and victims are need to push gun control.
I wonder if Ms. Jeltsen is aware that the police are not legally obligated to enforce a protective order?
Everyone should know that the police are under no obligation to save ANYONE. They’re just doing you a favor, if they feel like it.
Indeed. The myth of police protection might be the greatest domestic policy lie of the 20th Century. When I found out about Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales it was the biggest dam red pill I’ve ever swallowed, and was the final push which changed my mind about gun control. The reason I couched my comment with the protective order angle is that people are told by outlets such as Huff Po that EVERY issue has an governmental solution…which flies in the face of legal reality.
It’s not only legal reality. it’s the reality that a court order, a piece of paper, does NOTHING to protect the victim of DV. Isn’t it bizarre that some people think that a court order will not be defied not less than human nature?
The issuance of a protective order is usually a signal to the perpetrator that he must up his game to either completely disable or kill his hitherto regular victim, thus enabling him to move on and train up his next significant other.
A woman who is being assaulted has three choices: Take it, leave him, or kill him. Period. Full Stop.
And it’s not “domestic violence” it’s wife beating. If it happens to a male (rare, but it does happen) it’s husband beating.
One is about as rare as the other.
Yep, I’ve been a victim and threatened with a gun by an ex. Most of the guys I know have had abusive girlfriends at one point, it’s way more common than people want to acknowledge.
Take it should not be an option. We need to raise our daughters to leave or kill him. We also need to acquit wives who kill husbands when we serve on juries.
If the prosecution cannot come up with a motive other than spouse abuse, the answer should be “not guilty”, even if she shot the sucker while he was asleep.
I completely agree. But I know of cases where women did choose to take it, for reasons that I simply can’t comprehend.
A lot of commenters have put forth that domestic violence victims just sit back and take it. Many do. Many others were attacked once and leave or kick out their abuser (or die). The victim who is abused once is much more likely to defend themselves with deadly force than a victim who has taken it for years.
Another thing that doesn’t get talked about (regarding women as victims of domestic violence): the duality of women. Women are completely, 100% the same as men, with all the qualities and capabilities. Women are weaker and less durable than men, and must be granted many preferences over men.
Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it will kill us all.
Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the “right” to fistfight with 210lb. abusers and rapists.
Emotional abuse can be as scarring to women as rape. Still think it does not justify deadly force? A woman should be able to able to use whatever method possible against abuse and of any kind (verbal including) and it should be self-defense
Have to disagree. Hubby talks mean to you? Then *LEAVE*! No excuse for physical action except for response to physical action.
An irremovable nutsack shock collar fitted to males upon first offense could probably diffuse most follow-up offenses if the abusee had the controller. Possibly a small remotely activated hydraulic press in extreme cases, too.
Oh my ass! Tell that to a woman who is terrified after being beaten, is being stalked and threatened, that she’s better off unarmed. Tell her X she is now carrying a firearm after taking formal weapons training and see how he likes that thought!
With proper training, they are far FAR better off armed.
If the person is unwilling to use a weapon, any weapon, then yes, crawl in a hole and hope for the best or defend yourself. It’s a sure fact that the cops will only be there to take a report.
God, the stupidity is astounding.
What’s funny, is the same people advocating disarmament because “victims won’t defend themselves” (even if they’re generally right about that) are the ones claiming concealed carriers will be gunning each other down over parking spaces. Logically, the argument should be that arming victims would result in them vigilante-murdering their abusers, if anything. If they won’t defend themselves, they’re dead already (or will inevitably be murdered) and the gun is a non-factor, but if a victim does care to finally act like a human being and defend herself against an attacker, it’s there for her.
Once again, as always, these ‘one size fits all’ solutions of the disarmists are based on rather two-dimensional assumptions about the kinds of people their policies will be impacting. Why should we be directing policy for the benefit of people that won’t even bend a finger to save themselves and their children, over people who are willing to do anything and sacrifice everything in mortal combat to survive a dire situation?
The disarmist are also the same ones who avoid common sense statistics…like concealed weapon permit holders are many times less likely to commit a crime, even less than law enforcement officers.
The sky is ALWAYS going to fall for those folks. Time and time again when the sky never falls for anything, they still pull up ridiculous catastrophic visions based on nothing more than idiocy and expect sheeple to take a spoonful of it and like it.
Don’t spoon feed me dirt and tell me its sugar. I know the difference.
They’re right, as far as pre-supposing that DV victims are ready/willing/able to actually address their situation (beyond even mere survival in a violent altercation) for the most part. “Blame the victim” or whatever, but it’s pretty much always unwillingness to leave a bad situation when it was perfectly possible that leads to such dire circumstances. But on the flip side, it’s hardly likely that guns generally make the situation worse, since the average man is perfectly capable of ending the average woman’s life, *manually* –so it’s silly to think a gun offers some special level of capacity for violence in a DV scenario. Now, for the under-reported female abusers out there, I can see it as a more likely avenue of aggression against a physically superior male victim…except the dearth of actual shootings in those type of situations (dwarfed by male aggressors of all sorts, and by other means of aggression by females) suggests they can’t possibly play that prominent a role in the abuse.
It’s worth remembering that even when a gun ends a DV quarrel (both in defense and murder) it practically never started it, and is hardly the only available means of terminating a violent relationship permanently.
Just ask Lorena Bobbit!
Well, regardless of the situation the mantra of the left – at least for you, dear peasant – when faced with a deadly force threat whether it be from an abusive husband or your neighborhood thug or a determined terrorist is “run, hide, die”. Clearly, that works for a lot of folks but it rarely works out very well.
It is all very situation dependent and clearly fighting back in any given situation presents its own set of risks but nonetheless individuals should be free to make the choice and have the tools necessary to attempt to save their lives if such a worse case scenario should present itself.
To my way of thinking, the idea that the government should preemptively make the choice for you is absurd.
“…The NRA Wants To Solve Domestic Violence By Arming Victims. It Probably Won’t Work”
Probably.
So, you know, we should do it anyway because something about saving just one.
We need to all stand up and tell these people in no uncertain terms that the idea that it is more noble to be the victim is wrong. Not just wrong, but horribly, evilly wrong. People who promote the idea that someone should be a victim because they ‘probably’ couldn’t defend themselves anyway are the absolute worst kind of people and they need this pointed out to them. Loudly. Often. Did I mention loudly?
Just because a person is a victim doesn’t mean that they can’t choose to stop at a point in their lives. It happens. Not only that, but in the end if they are afraid enough of their spouse to acquire a firearm on the premise of defense from them things are already way bad.
Well, I guess”Constitutional Carry states” are the way to go then….But, also make it a “Capital Crime ” any of these kind of evil socialist engineering architects” from gaining power, and interfering, or infringing upon a lawful US citizens constitutional rights! You need to make it a “Capital Crime” for any private, corporate, government, law enforcement, judicial, etc.. To infringe with compensatory dispensation to the victim of not less than 250k for each incident…And fines and imprisonment of not less than 10 years!
Say one battered partner has a legit DGU, but three others when attacked by their abuser have the gun taken from them and used on them. Is it right to deprive the one who would have had a legit DGU? A utilitarian might say so. I would not say so.
Exactly.
Even more to the point: How many people are now dead, killed by their abusive spouses, because they could not get a firearm to defend themselves in time in states like New Jersey?
Now, THERE is an interesting story that some enterprising journalist should investigate.
Given that EVERY hobbyhorse “narrative” of the progtards MUST be suspected and story/stats of “domestic violence” must be questioned. No amount of hollywierd TV can be accepted as reality. The latest drivel from them is the sudden rampant “opioid crisis”. Where was this when Barry was in office? This suddenly arrived in the last 6months and is a world ending problem? And tied to the repeal of Obummercare.
They LIE always and ALL the time
Trump was the one to push the opiod crisis narrative. At the beginning of the primaries, he went out and talked to regular people. A lot of people complained about opiod abuse and deaths. He repeatedly mentioned it and said he was the only one talking about it.
But your point remains that it wasn’t considered a story while Obama was in office. Nothing bad happened when Obama was president. There weren’t even any scandals. Didn’t you know?
“In MN gunnies refer to the Personal Protection Act as “the law so nice we passed it twice” since a liberal court threw out the first version of shall-issue on a legislative rules technicality. ”
Constitutionality is not a “technicality”.
MN Constitution Says:
“No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.”
and if I remember correctly the original Personal Protection Act of 2003 was tied to a budget bill.
This should also be a Federal thing.
“Critics of the NRA say arming an abused women at a time of distress will only make it more likely that someone will die or be seriously injured ― whether it’s the victim, her children or her abuser. And if she does use a gun, they warn, she may end up in prison for the crime.”
Issuance of a restraining order and an emergency permit should be prima facie evidence of justifiable self defense if the victim shoots the person that is the subject of the restraining order.
If the person subject to the restraining order comes within 25 yards of the victim or displays a deadly weapon, that should be all that is needed to justify a self-defense shooting on the part of the victim.
The message to the perpetrator should be “approach the victim at the risk of loss of life.”
Correct, at least when the shooter is where she ought to be. If she is in *his* residence, no. If he knocks on her door, call 911, if he enters the house, shoot the mofo several times. But do NOT ever tell him you are armed, his first notice should be a sharp pain, followed by “bang”.
In fact, a restraining order should say:
“If X approaches within 25 yards or closer to Y, then Y will have the legal right to shoot the son of a bitch wherever hurts the most, shooting him dead if necessary, or if she feels like it”
You win the Uncommon Sense Comment of the Day award.
I agree that DV victims should not bring a gun into the situation, and I have two reasons why (flame suit on).
1. Anyone on this site would agree that if there’s a place where a violent encounter is likely, the optimal solution is to NOT GO THERE. A gun does not turn a no-go place into a go, right? By knowingly putting yourself in a violent environment with a firearm (when retreat could easily be accomplished) you are going against defensive carry 101. The correct solution is to LEAVE YOUR ABUSER.
“But Hooty,” you say, “DV victims are often not emotionally capable of leaving their abuser!” I agree, and that’s the reason for number…
2. Guns are capable of de-escalating a situation when the aggressor logically realizes that the risk of getting shot is not worth whatever they were trying to accomplish. But DV is not a logical act. Abusers are looking to exercise absolute power and control over their victims. When you present a firearm, you’re taking control of the situation and gaining power over the aggressor. DV perps cannot handle being on the receiving end of power wielded by someone that they see as “lesser.” The perp will likely do one of two things when you present a firearm: A) attack with more force, or B) de-escalate, but then stab the victim in his/her sleep. If B occurs, you’re screwed. If A occurs, you’re also screwed. If you didn’t have the balls to leave your known-to-be-abusive partner, what makes you think you have the balls to kill him/her? The correct solution is to LEAVE YOUR ABUSER.
Where is my logic flawed?
TL;DR: If you don’t have the balls to leave your abuser, what makes you think you have the balls to kill him/her? He/she will take your weapon from you and end your life in a blind rage.
“Where is my logic flawed?”
Not flawed, but incomplete.
Not all (or most?) incidents happen in cohabitation. What would be your preferred option for someone who “did not go there”, who left the abuser and began living elsewhere…..but, the abuser finds that person and attacks?
I agree 100% with regard to people who do not live with the abuser or who have left (are going to be leaving) the abuser.
Best and most logical response. I would have written it if I had thought about it.
“Domestic Abuse Victims are Better Off Disarmed”, say wife beaters everywhere?
I wonder if Melissa jeltsen would perfer being gang rape instead of shooting the rape gang members???
Because so many weak gun people are afraid to ask obviously hard questions, we will not be advancing gun civil rights.
Or perhaps as a middle or upper middle class white woman she doesn’t believe lower class blacks or anyone else should have guns???
Why does the gun community assume the gun grabber is a nice person???
The implied imperative is that a woman is, indeed, better off raped than being responsible for harming her attacker. Dead is more honorable, and more useful in forcing the narrative.
The phenomenon of domestic abuse, societal attitudes concerning it, and now the laws concerning it have changed radically over the past few decades. When I was a cop decades ago, I responded to an almost uncountable number of domestic disputes, usually involving an assault and battery upon the wife or girlfriend, quite often involving the same people again and again. Because assault/battery are misdemeanors and the law did not allow us to make an arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in our presence, the only recourse the victim had was to obtain a warrant for the abuser’s arrest, not always an easy thing to do. Recognition of the fact that being arrested more times than not led to a change in attitude in the abuser, many jurisdictions passed domestic abuse laws stating that police MUST arrest the alleged abuser upon the accusation of the victim and evidence of injury.
While being arrested modifies the conduct of MOST domestic abusers, it certainly doesn’t stop ALL of them and sometimes will incite further and even worse violence.- and those victims NEED the protection that a right to carry conveys.
Mental health issues… some women seek abusers, some men seek willing victims. Most cops will tell you about going tom a DV call to find a man beating a woman. When the cops try to arrest the man the woman often attacks the cops to defend “her man.”
Many women are killed with fists or by being chocked. A woman has to be prepared to jail an abuser and leave him. He will get out and as we know, a RO is just a piece of paper.
As a state trooper for over 22 yrs I can tell you that if an order of protection is needed that piece of paper tends to inflame the situation and most certainly will not stop a determined spouse bent on violence. A protection order is just like a law – law abiding people will usually obey it, criminals will not. In this case, the law abiding person becomes a criminal once they commit that first act of violating the order, usually by stalking or surveilling the person who requested the order. Males are more likely to violate such orders and attack the spouse/girlfriend. Women usually request such orders because their spouse IS ALREADY violent – the order inflames the situation. I’ve personally known several women who have gone down this path and it turned out badly (no murders fortunately). Granted, there are spouses who obtain such orders for other reasons such as custody battles but in cases where they are genuinely in fear of bodily harm, they are warranted. Sadly, these orders do nothing once the offender is on the premises and intend to hurt them. We all know a 200 lb man is going to win against an unarmed 100 lb woman. People cannot rely on the police to protect them – police are a deterrent. Same for an order of protection. I have always recommended to the women I’ve known who have been in bad breakups to either let me train them or get training in using a gun and then get one for their protection. It’s not always women who are victims either – sometimes it’s a man. As someone else said, they also must be prepared to USE or threaten to use deadly force once they produce the firearm – or it will be used against them or taken. We all know this article is nonsense as do the police, plus anything written by the Huffington Post is usually liberal garbage anyway. No one wants to see someone killed or hurt on either side but a person has a right to protect themself.
gun grabbers are democrats
democrats hate women
they say they love them but they really dont
if democrats really cared about women
they would let them arm themselves
and…they would hate muslims
“Critics of the NRA….”
Notice that? The NRA again. We need a “media guide to gun rights organizations”. Nice big infograph:
For Say
Gun Owners of America NRA
Second Amendment Sisters NRA
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership NRA
Women Against Gun Control NRA
Virginia Citizens Defense League NRA
grassroots activism gun lobby
gun rights advocate gun lobby
citizen gun lobby
black man Nazi