The NRA Is Trying to Block the Violence Against Women Act

[SaysWho?]

27 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

“They are opposing it for THIS odious reason, not THAT odious reason.”

 

@Slug You don't have to respond if you don't want to get into it again (it can be exhausting, I get it), but that's the main point I was making.

 

Said better in one sentence than I could in multiple posts.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

@Slug You don't have to respond if you don't want to get into it again (it can be exhausting, I get it), but that's the main point I was making.

 

Said better in one sentence than I could in multiple posts.  

I got you, boo.

[Slug]

48 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

@Slug You don't have to respond if you don't want to get into it again (it can be exhausting, I get it), but that's the main point I was making.

 

Said better in one sentence than I could in multiple posts.  

Usually when I say I'm punching out I don't come back into the thread, but I'm tired and down for one last attempt at clarifying my point. Plus, I know you're not a bad dude who's just trying to draw me in to an argument. :P

 

The reason the NRA is opposing the renewal in its current form when they did not oppose it on any previous re-authorization is that the writing of the new Red Flag provisions allows for the confiscation of guns (i.e.  the removal of rights) from a person on accusation, or signs of potential bad future behavior.  Not arrest, not conviction, not even issuance of a protective order.  It circumvents any due process or evidentiary standard.  It's not about allowing "convicted criminals" or those that have committed abuse to keep their guns.  We (ideally) don't jail citizens or strip rights without due process or conviction.  This addendum to VAWA codifies an exception to that rule.  That is their sticking point.  Now whether you agree whether the new addition is good or not is a whole other debate.  The only point I was trying to make was that, as distasteful as I find the NRA's lobbying arm to be at times,  painting their opposition here as "The NRA wants criminals to keep their guns!" is an unfair characterization.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

We strip voting rights for far less than anything described in this thread.

[Littleronin]

23 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

We strip voting rights for far less than anything described in this thread.

Every other right does matter in the US other than being able to own firearms. 

[TheGreatGamble]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

Let’s do nothing to prevent the violence in the first place.

 

Gun people make me actively hope for the confiscation bogeyman to be true.

Ahhhh, so you want a justice system where you no longer need to be proven guilty? No thanks... 

[Slug]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

We strip voting rights for far less than anything described in this thread.

I don't think that is acceptable either.

[Guest]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

Ahhhh, so you want a justice system where you no longer need to be proven guilty? No thanks... 

Let me introduce you to the restraining/protective order, things with long histories in this nation. Adding restriction on gun possession in extreme cases is quite reasonable. ERPOs work in the states that have adopted them. But dead women ain’t no big deal.

[Xbob42]

2 hours ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Ahhhh, so you want a justice system where you no longer need to be proven guilty? No thanks... 

Unless taking your gun away comes with a prison sentence, this logic is fucking stupid. Police officers can tow your car and take your phone/other property when arresting you long before you're proven guilty for a crime.

[Anathema-]

3 hours ago, Slug said:

I don't think that is acceptable either.

 

If you vote Republican that's a distinction without a difference.

[Slug]

22 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

If you vote Republican that's a distinction without a difference.

Good thing I don't then. :)

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, Xbob42 said:

Unless taking your gun away comes with a prison sentence, this logic is fucking stupid. Police officers can tow your car and take your phone/other property when arresting you long before you're proven guilty for a crime.

Owning a car isn’t a constitutional right.

[TheGreatGamble]

33 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

If you vote Republican that's a distinction without a difference.

I’d never vote for Trump. Just won’t vote for most liberals either.

 

Id vote for Gabbard, and maybe joe. Maybe.

[Chris-]

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Let me introduce you to the restraining/protective order, things with long histories in this nation. Adding restriction on gun possession in extreme cases is quite reasonable. ERPOs work in the states that have adopted them. But dead women ain’t no big deal.

Not to mention the incredibly long history of SCOTUS law dictating that constitutional rights can be violated for compelling reasons. Reducing DV homicides by 7% is pretty fucking compelling!

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Chris- said:

Reducing DV homicides by 7% is pretty fucking compelling!

“Is it?” - some people in this thread, probably.

[Anathema-]

I don't know about you guys but I don't want wife beaters in the militia anyways.

[Xbob42]

48 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Owning a car isn’t a constitutional right.

I'm down 100% to make the same true about guns.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 hours ago, Slug said:

I don't think that is acceptable either.

Cool. If only a small fraction of the gun rights advocates thought the same maybe there wouldn't be an issue, but your 2A compatriots have no interest in expanding the franchise, or ensuring that everyone who can vote is able with little hassle. Right now the so called right to a firearm has far more protection (political or legal) than the actual right, the basic foundation upon which representative government is founded, to vote. 

[osxmatt]

2 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Unless taking your gun away comes with a prison sentence, this logic is fucking stupid. Police officers can tow your car and take your phone/other property when arresting you long before you're proven guilty for a crime.

 

Show me in the constitution where it says driving or owning a phone is a right???

 

checkmate libs.

[LazyPiranha]

7 hours ago, Slug said:

Usually when I say I'm punching out I don't come back into the thread, but I'm tired and down for one last attempt at clarifying my point. Plus, I know you're not a bad dude who's just trying to draw me in to an argument. :P

 

The reason the NRA is opposing the renewal in its current form when they did not oppose it on any previous re-authorization is that the writing of the new Red Flag provisions allows for the confiscation of guns (i.e.  the removal of rights) from a person on accusation, or signs of potential bad future behavior.  Not arrest, not conviction, not even issuance of a protective order.  It circumvents any due process or evidentiary standard.  It's not about allowing "convicted criminals" or those that have committed abuse to keep their guns.  We (ideally) don't jail citizens or strip rights without due process or conviction.  This addendum to VAWA codifies an exception to that rule.  That is their sticking point.  Now whether you agree whether the new addition is good or not is a whole other debate.  The only point I was trying to make was that, as distasteful as I find the NRA's lobbying arm to be at times,  painting their opposition here as "The NRA wants criminals to keep their guns!" is an unfair characterization.

 

So, not to drag you back in but I think I can offer a different legal perspective here.  

 

Having a restraining order filed against you and having your weapons seized is due process, at least here in New Jersey.  In order to obtain a restraining order, you need to present the facts to the judge who needs to approve a restraining order in the first place, and in the event of a weapons seizure they need to approve that separately and justify it separately based on the facts as well.  That is due process.  The accused might not have the opportunity to contest it immediately, but the accused never gets to contest the majority of warrants in advance, because that kind of defeats the purpose of a warrant in the first place.  A person filing for a restraining order isn't very different from a person reporting a burglary.  If a judge and law enforcement is satisfied based on that testimony that there is probable cause to arrest someone and seize their weapons, they will.  If the accused is ultimately cleared, they can get their weapons back.  It is a hassle for sure, but so is getting any of your seized property back regardless of whether or not it's a weapon.  

 

Also unless I'm missing something, nothing in the modification to the VAWA act changes how the accused are affected, only the convicted.  It expands the list of misdemeanors that will prevent the convicted from owning or purchasing firearms.  Accusations aren't enough.  "The NRA wants criminals to keep their guns" while a broad characterization, is in this case technically true.  Again, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong here, but nothing I can see about this expansion will strip rights without due process or without a conviction.  Obtaining a restraining order is due process, and the others affected are convicted.

 

Finally, sings of potential bad future behavior are used in the criminal justice system all of the time.  It's kind of a huge deciding factor in how things are handled and sentenced.  It's why things like aggravating and mitigating circumstances are considered, it's why pre-meditated crimes are treated more severely than crimes of passion, etc.  

[Anathema-]

More people need a car than need a gun, much less many guns that can kill lots of people. 

[Hurdyb1]

Responding to the original post.

 

The NRA is seriously a horrible organization. I'm all for people having guns but the NRA as a voice for gun owners is disgusting.