IA - Bad news.

[Irish]

http://www.radioiowa.com/2010/03/11/iowa-senate-approves-domestic-violence-gun-bill/

Iowa Senate approves domestic violence gun bill
by O. Kay Henderson on March 11, 2010

The Iowa Senate has sent the governor a bill that would take guns away from those convicted of domestic abuse and forbid those who’re the subject of a “no-contact” order from owning or selling guns and ammunition. Senator Keith Kreiman, a Democrat from Bloomfield, says the bill is intended to reduce fear. “It is intended to reduce the number of instances of domestic abuse,” Kreiman says.

The bill passed on a 36 to 12 vote. Critics like Senator David Hartsuch, a Republican from Bettendorf, say this may mean people who are wrongly accused of domestic violence — and who are the subject of a “no-contact” order but haven’t been convicted of a crime — will lose their gun rights.

“I think there is ample evidence to suggest that this bill does not meet any legitimate social objective that would warrant the removal of Second Amendment rights,” Hartsuch says. And Hartsuch points to a case in a neighboring state as evidence this new Iowa law might not stand up to a legal challenge.

“The district court in Wisconsin struck down a very similiar law in September ‘09 because tehre was an individual…who had a misdemeanor offense of dometic violence who…hunted deer…and when his probation officer found out…went out, searched (the man’s home), found the gun and he was put in jail,” Hartsuch says. Kreiman, who is a lawyer, disagreed.

“As a supporter of the Second Amendment I understand that there is a fear that this bill will affect Second Amendment rights,” Kreiman says. “The short and direct answer is that this bill affects no person who has not been found by a judge or jury to have committed domestic abuse or assault.” Kreiman says domestic abuse is extremely dangerous not only to families, but to law enforcement and sometimes, to innocent bystanders.

“As much as we prize our constitutional rights, sometimes those rights are limited or forfeited due to criminal conduct or conduct that has been found by a court to be extremely dangers or harmful to others,” Kreiman says. The bill passed the House last night on a 73 to 25 vote. Governor Culver is expected to sign it into law.

[woodandsteel]

“As a supporter of the Second Amendment I understand that there is a fear that this bill will affect Second Amendment rights,” Kreiman says. “The short and direct answer is that this bill affects no person who has not been found by a judge or jury to have committed domestic abuse or assault.” Kreiman says domestic abuse is extremely dangerous not only to families, but to law enforcement and sometimes, to innocent bystanders.

That part in bold is basically a lie. That, or he doesn't understand what he is talking about. A No Contact (restraining) Order is issued at the time a person is arrested, not convicted. And, it is not to hard for a person to find themselves on the wrong side of a No Contact Order. They aren't just issued for domestic relationships.

I hate it when politicians say "As a supporter of the Second Amendment" while working against it.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Line 1:


abuse and forbid those who’re

Is "Who are" a contraction that gets used in the other 49 states, or is it just an Iowa thing?

Who're Whores?

Give me what I want in the Divorce or never touch a gun again.

[ryanm]

I want to know where my NRA representation was in this process. I absolutely did not get my money's worth on this issue.

[arizonaranchman]

Mark my words, some day they'll extend these prohibitions to those who've been convicted of any public offense at all - traffic violations included. After all you're a public danger... Given enough time nobody will qualify to own firearms and the 2nd Amendment will have essentially been gutted for all practical purposes.

[glocktogo]

I'm hoping that Gura will prevail over Chicago in the SCOTUS. If so, silly laws like this one and the Lautenberg abomination may become vulnerable.

[Irish]

That part in bold is basically a lie. That, or he doesn't understand what he is talking about. A No Contact (restraining) Order is issued at the time a person is arrested, not convicted. And, it is not to hard for a person to find themselves on the wrong side of a No Contact Order. They aren't just issued for domestic relationships.

I hate it when politicians say "As a supporter of the Second Amendment" while working against it.

Does there need to be an arrest for a restraining order to be brought against someone? I don't think so but please correct me if I'm wrong.

[BrianS]

A similar law was proposed and defeated this session in Washington. I guess Iowa has less active gun rights groups/citizens or a more liberal or stupid legislature.

[dbrowne1]

Yet another asinine act of government that puts anyone and everyone just one pissed-off, psychotic ex away from getting railroaded...

[khc3]

Does there need to be an arrest for a restraining order to be brought against someone? I don't think so but please correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought TRO's were filed rather routinely in divorces, as a "preventitive" measure.

Never been through one myself...

[woodandsteel]

Does there need to be an arrest for a restraining order to be brought against someone? I don't think so but please correct me if I'm wrong.

In Iowa there are both civil and criminal no contact orders. The criminal ones are issued for cases of domestic abuse, harassment and certain other crimes. In these cases the no contact order is automatically issued. The civil ones are issued in cases of divorce proceedings, or any other cases where a person goes down on their own and pays the filing fee.

All criminal ones already prohibit the possession and access to firearms. I am not sure if the civil ones automatically do. Although, I do remember seeing a civil no contact order that had that provision written into it.

[armakraut]

This is what happens when people treat liberty as conferring something other than unlimited immunity on the person exercising it.

[woodandsteel]

I want to know where my NRA representation was in this process. I absolutely did not get my money's worth on this issue.

I'm with you on this one.

You know, normally I am somewhat aware of what laws are being discussed. But, this law seemed to fly under the radar.

There was a lot of press about the "Ed Thomas Law" that called for hospitals to notify law enforcement when they were releasing mental patients who had charges pressed against them. And then, all of a suddent this new law is on the Governor's desk.

I wondering what the catalyst was for this law. Especially since there is Federal law that basically already covers this new law.

[Icedaddy56]

In Illinois we call the no contact orders ( Orders of Protection) These can be obtained on an emergency basis through a court by an advocate or directly, usually after a police report alledging domestic abuse ( even if an arrest was not made) Emergency orders can be up to 30 days duration and can restrict gun possession. A hearing with a judge is needed to extend the emergency order to 2 years. If any conviction for domestic abuse occurs, then the State revokes the persons FOID card, which is a firearms ID card issued by the State required for possession of firearms and ammunition in Illinois. Plan on blowing this state as soon as my wife retires. :mad:

[Safetyhit]

As I stated from experience in the now locked other thread by the OP, the TRO situation can already be anyone's reality here in NJ and the disease is spreading.

Not saying there can never be legitimacy to taking someone's guns if they are overtly threatening, but there should be ample, sustainable reason to do so. Not just the word of someone out for revenge.

[dbrowne1]

I want to know where my NRA representation was in this process. I absolutely did not get my money's worth on this issue.

I'll tell you where they probably were - hiding in political fear that they'll be labeled by feminazi groups as "misogynists" or accused of trying to protect the right of wifebeaters to kill their wives, or some other such nonsense. Once the media gets ahold of that, it will then inaccurately report the proposed law as being something much more reasonable that what it actually is, and then the NRA will be painted as unreasonable extremists.

The NRA is VERY image and PR conscious. I can almost guarantee that the above is the reason that they don't get involved, at least not openly, in legislative debates on things like this.

[Safetyhit]

Does there need to be an arrest for a restraining order to be brought against someone?


Not at all. Here at least it is far too easy to do.

[d90king]

Does there need to be an arrest for a restraining order to be brought against someone? I don't think so but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not sure if it varies by state or not but the answer is no in Pa and De. Put simply you and your lawyer can go before a judge and present evidence, the judge then will decide if it is warranted. So ultimately you can simply be served with a PFA or the like with no way to fight it until a court date... Its kinda scary, however judges do require hard evidence to support your claims before issuing.

[GermanSynergy]

Mark my words, some day they'll extend these prohibitions to those who've been convicted of any public offense at all - traffic violations included. After all you're a public danger... Given enough time nobody will qualify to own firearms and the 2nd Amendment will have essentially been gutted for all practical purposes.

I agree this will likely be the road they take.

[Macx]

We need to start making sure that passing such legislation = career death. All a politician has to do to become a garbage colletor is advance this kind of B.S. it is anti-American and it is time for it to stop. :mad:

[GermanSynergy]

We need to start making sure that passing such legislation = career death. All a politician has to do to become a garbage colletor is advance this kind of B.S. it is anti-American and it is time for it to stop. :mad:

I hope more Americans wake up to this sort of legislation being passed that could effectively strip them of their rights the instant that they cross the wrong ex GF, etc. I can see many vindictive people using this legislation as blackmail- like "give me what I want or lose your guns forever".

[Macx]

That is exactly how I see it too. Exactly the reason that the last woman before my wife didn't become my wife . . . when we'd argue (and I don't mean about anything significant, I am talking about when she'd get pissed about me spending my money on Pilot G2 ink pens when I could get twice as many cheap Bic's for 1/2 the price) she'd get all psycho and just had no regard for how some of her behavior could have an impact on my long term rights. Out the door she went & thankfully I cut her loose before any damage was done to my rights. A lot of guys don't see it coming or don't get out when they do . . . "couldn't happen to me because I'd never hit a woman" has bitten too many men in the butt, when they get schooled in "burden of proof".

Legislation like this sets guys up for a terrible future. One where she can smack you around because she is 98 lbs and can't do credible damage anyway, but if you block a blow it could leave a bruise that will end your rights. It is like so much of the other zero tolerance crap. By legislating discretion out of law enforcement's jurisdiction, Justice is raped a bit, and that sweet, haggard lady is getting pretty worn out by these systemic affronts. Justice is supposed to be blind, that doesn't mean she is supposed to be a victim to slick politicians passing laws they think will be good for votes in the short term . . . with no regard to the long term consequences on society.

[tomme boy]

Everything in Iowa revolves around teachers and farmers. If they don't want it, it is not going to happen.

[Donbeeler49]

This is how it all starts. A little bit here, a little bit there. That's why all of us that care need to be vigilant all the time. Politicians say they will never mess with the 2nd Amendment. Really???

[ST911]

I'll tell you where they probably were - hiding in political fear that they'll be labeled by feminazi groups as "misogynists" or accused of trying to protect the right of wifebeaters to kill their wives, or some other such nonsense. Once the media gets ahold of that, it will then inaccurately report the proposed law as being something much more reasonable that what it actually is, and then the NRA will be painted as unreasonable extremists. The NRA is VERY image and PR conscious. I can almost guarantee that the above is the reason that they don't get involved, at least not openly, in legislative debates on things like this.

There is very little give or gray area with the victim lobby, and they can be vicious. Speak constitutionally, with some common sense, or against felonizing offenses, and you may be branded a misogynistic apologist for batterers and rapists so fast your head will spin.

If you're a cop locking horns with your victim advocates, they may call your CLEO and suggest that you are not suitable to respond to DV and sexual assault calls, for the favor you appear to carry for offenders.

Their rhetoric plays well with the media, and they lap it up. They are very good at getting very ugly.

[ryanm]

The politics in Iowa sickens me. I'm not sure what I'm going home to at this point. So much for "Our Liberties We Prize, and Our Rights We will Maintain".

Whose rights? Liberal Gay Anti-gunners? We're sure protecting the hell out of those folks. What about the rest of us?

This just totally sucks. The next time I get ane-mail asking for more NRA-ILA donations that guy is going to get a response from a not-so-happy customer. From my perspective, I totally wasted my money on the NRA and ILA.

I agree with dbrowne1 on this issue, they don't want to do their job. But that's what I thought I was paying for. I never even saw an update on this issue to contact a representative or to try to get involved. This just flew in like a stealth bomber.

At the very least, I want to see a strong NRA response and start challenging the law in the courts immediately. If they don't, I'm done with them. They're obviously too busy to care or worry about Iowa.

[Stickman]

IA - Bad news


Any street cop could tell you that.... :D

[armakraut]

I'd say vote with your feet, but it's bad all over. They buried the concept of federalism a long time ago. I don't know of a single state that actually tries to uphold constitutional liberties and thumbs their nose at the feds in any meaningful manner.