An emergency protective order filed against former state legislator Steve Nunn by his one-time fiancee specifically prohibited him from the possession or purchase of a firearm.
The domestic violence order obtained by Amanda Ross in March says that "in order to assist in eliminating specific acts of domestic violence and abuse: Respondent is further ordered not to possess, purchase, or attempt to possess, purchase or obtain a firearm during the duration of this order."
Ross, 29, was shot to death on Friday outside of her home. No one has been charged in her death.
Nunn was arrested in Hart County on Friday afternoon after allegedly firing a .38-caliber handgun when police officers approached him. He was charged with six counts of wanton endangerment. Lexington police have said he is a person of interest in the death of Ross.
Nunn was taken to the Bowling Green Medical Center with self-inflicted wounds on his wrists. He was still there on Sunday night, State Police said. He is expected to be moved to the Hart County Jail on Monday.
Police have not said whether the handgun he allegedly brandished belonged to Nunn or where he might have obtained it.
This must be another misuse of the word "brandish." Recently we had lengthy discussions about whether openly carrying guns at the presidential appearances could be called "brandishing." Most agreed it could not, even though a secondary definition of the word could apply.
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.2. To display ostentatiously.
But in today's story, I really don't see how the word could be used. He was said to have fired at police, then they call it "brandishing?" Is that some kind of attempt to downplay the offense? What do you think?
About the title of the post, "Guns are Bad News for Women - Especially in Kentucky," does anyone deny this - like the the last time we discussed it? Here we've got a state in which restraining orders and histories of abusing spouses and partners need not prohibit a man from enjoying his gun rights.
Federal law prohibits someone who has a protective order against them from having a weapon. But that law doesn't require courts or law enforcement to confiscate a gun or other weapon. In other words, domestic violence offenders in many cases continue to possess their guns after their offenses against women.
Kentucky has no state law regarding the possession of weapons by a person who has a domestic violence order against them, but judges often address the issue specifically if an allegation includes information about weapons, Thomas said. Although allegations about weapons are not clear from court documents, Family Court Judge Tim Philpot made the prohibition against them specific for Nunn.
So, in practice, it depends on the case by case pronouncement of the judge. And in this case, for example, Nunn was prohibited. But did officers of the court go to his house and take his gins away? Was he required to surrender all his weapons or face contempt of court charges? It doesn't sound like it.
So, once again the sorry combination of factors makes for a mess. The prevalence of men abusing women combined with the weak gun laws in Kentucky has resulted in another preventable death. May Amanda Ross rest in peace and may her relatives and loved ones find forgiveness and acceptance in their hearts.
Please feel free to leave a comment.
Surprisingly, tonight a couple of female commentators on FOX were talking about violence against women perpetrated by men. They suggested that laws need to be changed because an overwhelming number of women are killed by men compared to the number of men who are killed by women. (Not to mention that rapes are almost all committed against a woman by a man.)
ReplyDeleteI was so surprised to hear FOX talking about this.
Instead of issuing a piece of paper, women with a legitimate need for a restraining order should be issued a temporary license and a loaner gun.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely serious about that, but it makes more sense than expecting a piece of paper to work. I have heard the Bradys in this situation say that women should not be able to get guns in these "volatile" situations because it will only make things worse.
Do you think we should make it "fair" for everyone involved by limiting everyone to their inherent physical strength?
Has it occurred to you, Mikeb, that what is bad for women are abusive, violent, and sometimes murderous men, and that when under attack from such men, a firearm is by far the most effective equalizer to counter the generally superior size and strength of men?
ReplyDeleteAbout half of all convicted inmates in local jails serving time for violence against an
ReplyDeleteintimate had a history of having been placed under a restraining or protection order.
Nearly 4 in 10 offenders sentenced to jail for violence against a current or former
spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend had a criminal justice status or a restraining order
against them when they committed their crime.
Among victims of intimate violence, 17% of the
female victims and 29% of the males reported
that the offender had used a weapon.
For those men who had faced an intimate wielding a
weapon, the weapon was more likely to have been a
sharp or blunt object rather than a knife or firearm.
Among the women reporting violence by an armed
intimate, firearms, knives, and objects used as weapons
were mentioned with about the same frequency.
Female victims of intimate violence, 1992-96
Gun, knife or stab wound 0.5%
Check out this video:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=9601318&referralPlaylistId=playlist
As I've said before, a gun does very little to empower the average man against the average woman given the size and strength difference. But a gun does EVERYTHING to empower a woman.
I ask myself, which will make my daughter's safer when they are adults women and walking alone at night (which I don't want them to be afraid to do)? More laws to restrict gun ownership or a loaded .357 magnum snubby and the training/will to use it?
I'll go with the .357 magnum vs. hoping the man who assaults them won't choose to bring a weapon anyway.
Thanks for the fodder for a blog post of my own! You might want to make a comment there yourself, Mr. B.
ReplyDeleteShooting at police is not brandishing...correct.
ReplyDelete"Here we've got a state in which restraining orders and histories of abusing spouses and partners need not prohibit a man from enjoying his gun rights."
Total BS and you know it because you stated it right here..."Federal law prohibits someone who has a protective order against them from having a weapon."
"So, in practice, it depends on the case by case pronouncement of the judge."
Huge pile of BS. Your position is that federal law only applies if the state judge mentions it???
Kinda silly and utterly false.
Try looking at the big picture here MikeB.
A restraining order is issued for person X to stay away from person Y. Whether or not that actually happens is a matter of person X's behavior and respect for the law. Cops are not going to monitor person X and make sure they comply.
When the restraining order is issued, person X must surrender their weapons to "someone" as a matter of federal law regardless of whether the state judge says squat. Whether or not they actually do it is a matter of person X's behavior and respect for the law. The cops are not going to confiscate them and force him to comply.
So your percieved ineffectiveness of non-confiscation of guns is matched perfectly with the ineffectiveness of a piece of paper protecting someone from another violent individual.
Suggesting that the solution is to arm women is as unrealistic as some of my ideas. Do you guys live in a fantasy world? That's what you often accuse me of.
ReplyDelete"Suggesting that the solution is to arm women is as unrealistic as some of my ideas. "
ReplyDeleteGo to a CCW Class, Mike. That's exactly what's happening these days.
So Reality is "Unrealistic"? Odd juxtaposition....
Suggesting that the solution is to arm women is as unrealistic as some of my ideas. Do you guys live in a fantasy world? That's what you often accuse me of.
ReplyDeleteIt is not "the" solution in all cases, but it has worked in individual cases.
The idea that women's safety when confronted by a large angry man should be limited to their inherent strength and the reaction speed of the cops is unrealistic.
Oh and to back up my claims
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.nssf.org/2009/09/report-new-women-shooters-say-theyre-interested-in-personal-protection.html
And of course any news report I've read (as well as classes I've attended) have noticed that HUGE numbers of women are getting into gun ownership and CCW.
Also look at industry shows and store shelves the number of guns suited for smaller hands, and the number of guns now offered in pink further support the trend.
(On a personal note, these non-standard color guns are a hoot to me...meanwhile my wife prefers handguns to be black or silver, and dislikes the look of even wood...different strokes!)
Suggesting that the solution is to arm women is as unrealistic as some of my ideas.
ReplyDeleteAh--one of the favorite ploys of citizen disarmament tyranny: accusing the resistance of wanting "to arm" someone (or everyone).
The thing is, Mikeb, very few, if any, of us are socialists. We're not proposing "to arm" anyone. They'll have to arm themselves.
We support the woman's right to choose--to choose (we hope) armed self-reliance over disarmed subservience. The bottom line is that women who make that choice are not only vastly better equipped to survive an abusive, violent relationship; they're less likely to get into such a relationship in the first place.
MikeB says guns are bad news for women and then posts this on Breda's blog...
ReplyDelete" mikeb302000 said...
Great story about the pregnant girl who protected her home and family. Good for her.
September 16, 2009 1:31 PM"
beowulf, I'm not saying YOU want to arm THEM. Let me say it another way: encouraging women to arm themselves as a solution is as unrealistic as some of my ideas.
ReplyDeletekaveman, There's no contradiction there. In a specific case, like that pregnant girl, I'm all for it. I've said before that if I lived in certain parts of the States I'd have guns myself. These specific cases have nothing to do with the general idea that guns are bad news for women or that more guns lead to more problems.
I've never said no one should have a gun or that I support total bans and confiscation. It's the lax laws and the too easy access that I have a problem with, among other things.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou are being disingenuous at best, lying more likely.
Out of all the ways you've listed to reduce the flow, not one of them supports the rights of the law abiding to have access to firearms without undue burden.
You asked on my site why my daughter didn't carry.
Required class - $50 to $150
(an 10 to 12 hour course, which means either missing a day of work or losing several evenings)
Class Fee -$5
Photos - $8
Fingerprints - $10
(fingerprints that must be taken at approved sites which means taking off at least a couple of hours from work)
CHL Fee -$140.
That is before she ever buys a handgun and ammunition, we are looking around $260 dollars.
Federal laws prohibit the importation of "saturday night specials" so most firearms run around $300 to $700 for something basic for carry.
Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition also increase the costs.
Now, you want to increase the burden on people like my daughter and myself....because one day someone might steal a firearm from us and might use it in a crime, is that right?
That's a lot of mights isnt it?
And in the mean time, people are getting raped, assaulted, and murdered because people like you are wanting to reduce "gun violence". How do you sleep at night?
"There's no contradiction there. In a specific case, like that pregnant girl, I'm all for it."
ReplyDeleteThat's some progress I congratulate.
Now try and follow me.
Did this pregnant woman know, prior to the crime, that she would be the victim of a crime?
NO.
Did this pregnant woman know, prior to the crime, that the gun in the house was an absolute garruntee against being the victim of an unknown future crime against her and her family?
NO.
Did this woman, prior to the crime, have a gun in the house for self defense?
UNKNOWN.
Did this woman, prior to the crime, feel comfortable enough with the handling of a firearm to use it in self defense?
YES.
Did this woman prevent an additional crime, above and beyond the first crime from occurring through the lawful use of a firearm?
YES.
Were the police there to take the place of this pregnant woman?
NO.
Did this pregnant woman dispense the justice of judge, jury and executioner?
NO.
Would she be justified if she did?
YES.
Did the cops show up AFTER the first crime was committed and the second crime stopped by this pregnant mom?
YES.
I could go on at length but I hope you can see what it is that I'm trying to convey.
Kaveman - I suspect that's because MikeB doesn't have the balls to tell Breda "Guns are bad news for women" on her own blog.
ReplyDelete