Saturday, October 5, 2013

Vermont Governor Wants Abusers' Guns Stored

Law enforcement officials should be able to charge for storage of firearms belonging to people subject to protection from abuse orders, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said Thursday.
Those subject to relief-from-abuse orders usually are required not to possess firearms, which Shumlin called an important safeguard when emotions are running high, and the legislation Shumlin is backing would lighten the burden on authorities trying to make sure those weapons are secure.
‘‘The goal is to give law enforcement and professional (gun) dealers the means to take control of the storage of firearms while protection orders are in effect, instead of letting abusers hand them over to a friend or family member or, worse, hold on to them,’’ the governor said.
Under the legislation, sheriffs would be allowed to charge a fee for the storage of weapons and could sell them if the fee were not paid. A $75,000 fund would be set up to support building and maintaining storage facilities, with the aim that the fund would be replenished by the fees.
Shumlin said current gun laws —Vermont is among the most favorable states in the country toward gun ownership rights — would not change. What would change would be the ability of law enforcement to take and store firearms when a judge issues an order that a domestic violence perpetrator not possess weapons.
Tronsgard-Scott said national research showed that the ‘‘presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.’’

25 comments:

  1. If they want to make that an Option, go for it. Gives them the potential for an additional revenue stream other than forfeitures, gives the owners an option with more security while they seek relief from the order, etc.

    As long as its an option and not a requirement that they use one of these facilities, I have no problem with it. My problem with requiring it is that it means that a vindictive person can falsely accuse their spouse of abuse and not only make them turn over their guns while the judge sorts it out, but also force them to incur a fee. If you don't think people are that petty in divorce cases, you've not been around enough of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do these options prevent a vindictive spouse from filing a false claim?

      Delete
    2. They don't. I'm just saying that with those options, at least the innocent party doesn't incur storage fees--it removes one incentive for the vindictive spouse and lets the one being lied about keep a little more of his or her money to pay for legal fees, etc.

      If you're going to try to prevent vindictive spouses doing things like this you either need to look at changes to the process and burden of proof or some form of punitive system for false claims.

      Delete
  2. "Under the legislation, sheriffs would be allowed to charge a fee for the storage of weapons and could sell them if the fee were not paid."

    So if I'm reading this right. Instead of being ordered not to possess firearms while the protection order is in force, the recipient will be ordered to turn the firearms directly over to the police to hold. And they get to pay for the forced storage. If the fee isn't affordable, they lose the guns, to be sold by the police.
    Sounds like taking property without compensation to me. A much simplier solution would be to as mentioned in the story, give the defendant the option of having a friend or

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. C'mon, the friend or relative option is a way of sidestepping the order.

      Delete
    2. Mike,
      It's already illegal to transfer a firearm you have reason to believe is a prohibited person, such as a person under a protective order. If the friend gives the gun to the prohibited person, then he gets prosecuted for illegal transfer. Make sure they sign a sworn statement that they understand that point.

      Delete
    3. Excellent suggestion, Sarge.

      Delete
    4. You guys are so full of it. The friend or relative option is code for just keep the fucking guns and SAY you gave them to a friend or relative. You know this but pretend not to. I expect this kind of shit from T., but you surprise me, ss.

      Delete
    5. The the abuse victim can call the cops and say the abuser still has guns.

      Delete
    6. Mike,
      Vermont has no requirement for purchase permits, no gun registration, and constitutional carry. So the only way for the judge to know for sure would be if the person receiving the protection order says so.
      So, as is usually put in limitations for people being released on bail, No possession of firearms.
      When I was looking at Tennessee's law regarding domestic assault, I saw that they have such a procedure on the books right now.

      "(b) The court shall then order and instruct the respondent:

      (1) To terminate the respondent’s physical possession of the firearms in the respondent's possession by any lawful means, such as transferring possession to a third party who is not prohibited from possessing firearms, within forty-eight (48) hours;

      (2) To complete and return the affidavit of firearm dispossession form created pursuant to subsection (e), which the court may provide the respondent or direct the respondent to the administrative office of the courts' web site; and"

      http://www.tennessee.gov/tccy/tnchild/36/36-3-625.htm

      Delete
    7. Actually, Mike, it's code for give them to a friend or relative so that you aren't subject to prosecution for keeping them in your possession. Usually, judges ask for some proof their order has been complied with as well.

      Meanwhile, if you had actually READ Sarge's statement, you'd know that he was suggesting some paperwork that would provide proof that the guns had actually been transferred to the friend and that the friend had notice that he would be violating the law if he returned the guns to the person charged with abuse.

      In other words, Sarge was proposing a change that would do something about the problem you're trying to point out.

      That solution is what I said was an excellent suggestion, and yet here you come along, falsely accusing us of not acknowledging that some people lie about turning their guns over to a friend.

      You really have no integrity any more with all of these false accusations of lying.

      Delete
    8. Tennessean,
      To be fair, another challenge with someone under a protection order is them giving their firearms to a friend or relative and them just expecting them to give them back whenever they want to use it. And this is a justifiable concern.
      The paper trail that is documents the transfer of the firearms also puts the person who the firearms are transferred to that they have a responsibility to not give the person under the protective order the firearms, or THEY will be held legally responsible.

      Delete
    9. I guess I didn't make it clear that I saw that angle too. It puts them on notice so they don't run afoul of the law, and by putting them on notice it makes a D.A.'s job easier if they do give the guns back to the owner who cannot possess them because the paperwork can be used to prove the mens rea.

      Delete
    10. I know you saw that. Just wanted to make sure Mike did.

      Delete
    11. How is that supposed to work with a relative who lives in the same home?

      Delete
    12. Can you find any instances where that's been allowed? Every person I know who has been ordered to get rid of their guns temporarily has had to remove them from the premises. Unless you can prove that this is an issue, you're beating up a scarecrow.

      And besides, requiring that the guns be stored someplace other than the home of the disarmed individual is a simple requirement to add to the system Sarge suggested. Is that your only issue with his suggestion?

      Delete
  3. Nothing outrageous about this. When a drunk driver gets arrested their car is impounded and the drunk must pay towing and storage fees.
    The hillbilly infers that all restraint orders are based on false statements. HA HA HA HA HA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You wrongly inferred it. I implied no such thing. I merely implied that SOME are based on false statements and that we shouldn't pile more fees on those who are falsely accused.

      Work on your understanding of imply and infer...and on your reading comprehension.

      Delete
    2. The difference between these two situations is that in the case of the vehicle impound, if there is a sober person available they would be allowed to drive it. Or if not, it can be picked up the next day.
      This law would constitute a long term taking with no alternatives for others to keep them and still charge for the storage.

      Delete
    3. "The hillbilly infers that all restraint orders are based on false statements. HA HA HA HA HA"

      Jim, that fact of the matter is that some are based on false statements. I've had personal experience in this area. If you're lucky, the judge's bullshit detector will catch it, but sometimes you aren't lucky. Tennessean didn't say all. He gave a credible example of how that could happen.
      Also keep in mind that protective orders don't require the same level of proof as in a criminal case since it's a civil procedure.

      Delete
    4. "My problem with requiring it is that it means that a vindictive person can falsely accuse their spouse of abuse and not only make them turn over their guns while the judge sorts it out, but also force them to incur a fee."

      Don't see the word "some" anywhere. Work on your lies hillbilly. That's a real hillbilly, he even lies like an idiot.

      Delete
    5. "A person can" means some, but then, if you weren't a troll, you'd know that.

      Delete
    6. "A person can means some"

      This laughable crap from a professor? HA HA HA HA HA
      What a stupid hillbilly excuse to try and make a lying point.

      Delete
    7. Give it a rest, Troll. Nobody is being swayed by this stupidity on your part.

      Delete
    8. You give it a rest ass hole
      There is no reasonable reply to such idiocy
      "A person can, means some."
      You are a bigger fucking idiot than I thought, but thanks for proving me correct, yet again.

      Delete