Gun control bills typically don't gain traction in election years, but a couple of proposals are moving through the Legislature this session. Unlike the sweeping proposals that failed last year, the bills this session are more modest and have bipartisan support.
Members of Protect Minnesota and other gun control advocacy groups rallied at the state Capitol Friday to support a bill that, among other things, would allow courts to bar people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns.
Bills sponsored by Rep. Dan Schoen, DFL-St. Paul Park, and Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, would allow judges to order gun owners subject to such orders to surrender their guns to law enforcement, a licensed gun dealer or an eligible third party.
Heather Martens, president of Protect Minnesota, said there is a wide consensus that the measure is needed.
"It's something that everyone seems to agree on — that domestic abusers should not have firearms," she said.
Somehow, I doubt that very seriously. I haven't seen much in the gun debate that "everyone seems to agree on." Have you?
This bill started out with some issues because originally it made no mention of any limitations that would have garunteed due process and it also required the surrender of firearms to either law enforcement or an FFL, which would have made getting the firearms back after the expiration of a protective order a challenge. After all, neither law enforcement of FFLs are in the business of firearm storage.
ReplyDeleteI was able to watch the committee hearing online and Senator Latz was quite amenable to adding language to allow the transfer of firearm to a friend or family member in order to comply with the law. As for the concern about due process, the committee counsel gave an opinion that the law would not apply to ex parte orders and there would be an opportunity for a hearing before a judge if desired.
Currently the house version of the bill includes the change permitting transfers to a third party, but the senate version doesn't. So that is something that will beed to be remedied before passage.
Also lets keep in mind another part of this article,
"However, Minneapolis Sgt. Chris Nichols, who investigates felony-level domestic assaults, said his cases rarely involve firearms. Instead, abusers typically beat or choke their victims, he said.
Nichols also said if the accused abuser has a gun in the home, nine times out of 10, that person is already legally prohibited from having it.
"So a judge can obviously order them to surrender the firearms, but they're not going to because they're already breaking the law," he said. "They're not afraid to disobey a judge's order."
That sort of sounds like something I've heard mentioned here before.
That's pretty interesting how they tailored the bill to take care of the concerns that were raised. Rare to see such listening and responsiveness anymore.
DeleteAlso, in another post I mentioned a bill introduced to add requirements to permit holders who elect to carry in the Capitol building. Here is what has happened with that proposed legislation,
ReplyDelete"Yesterday, GOCRA and NRA representatives met with Senator David Tomassoni, who was the author-of-record of the bad Capitol Carry bill, SF2690.
As often happens in the Legislature, Senator Tomassoni agreed to “carry” the bill as a favor to a colleague.
Once we calmly explained our issues -with the bill, Senator Tomassoni, who has always been a staunch supporter of Second Amendment rights, told us that he was not comfortable with the provisions of the bill. As a consequence, this afternoon, Senator Tomassoni withdrew the bill from consideration."
http://www.gocra.org/news/category/uncategorized/
What kind of evidence is needed for a restraining order? The old "you can indite a ham sandwich" tale is true, if parties are willing to lie under oath in front of a judge. People in bitter disputes between each other lie all the time.
ReplyDeleteAnon, that is one of the beefs I have with restrictions of gun rights when a protective order is in force. While prosecution of domestic assault is a criminal hearing carries with it the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a protection order is a civil procedure and therefor has a lower burden of proof. I believe the requirement is a preponderance of evidence, which translates out to a 51% chance it's true as opposed to the much higher percentage required in a criminal case.
DeleteSo, when in doubt, remove the guns. They can be returned after the restraining order is shown to be frivolous. But, assuming all restraining orders are not frivolous, we can't risk leaving truly dangerous people with their guns.
DeleteHow would it be found frivolous if the judges decision was based on only oral testimony of one person, with no other evidence?
DeleteSo if it is a criminal prosecution and a defendant is found guilty of physical assault in a bar fight, should that person have their gun rights revoked even if it's not a felony?
Mikeb says when in doubt, violate the person's rights. Such a believer in democracy and liberty he is.
DeleteThat's rich coming from a guy (GC) whose own words promote actions that ignore individual rights.
DeleteSarge, perhaps you could explain the differences between this bill and the Lautenberg amendment. Or is this a case of Japete wasting her time trying to get Minnesota law to duplicate what is already done federally?
ReplyDeleteI actually discussed this with Japete on this subject. The reasoning is that having a state law that covers what is essentially the same restriction as on the federal will allow state prosecution of the lawbreakers. I can actually see the logic in this when you take into consideration the federal government's track record with prosecuting prohibited persons for possession of firearms.
DeleteAgain, ss, you show yourself to be a rare reasonable pro-gun guy.
Delete