Maryland at it again

[crakkajakka15]

What do you think.....

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown testified before a panel of state lawmakers Thursday about why the state should take firearms from domestic abusers.


The lieutenant governor's cousin was shot to death last year by an estranged boyfriend in the garage of her Montgomery Village home.

Brown and Gov. Martin O'Malley want judges to be required to take guns from the subjects of final protective orders and allow guns to be revoked on an emergency basis from subjects of temporary orders.

Brown called the legislation common sense.

"Even if there's evidence that the abuser is threatening the victim with a gun, the judge today under Maryland law cannot order that the gun be removed. That makes no sense," he said.

Brown's cousin did not have a protective order against the estranged boyfriend, but he said the bill would have taken guns from 200 domestic abusers in 2008.

Data from the governor's office shows there are more than 6,700 final protective orders and 382 temporary orders currently open in the state. Of those orders, 75 involve registered gun owners.

"If we can save one, two, three of those 75 Marylanders … we've done a good thing," Brown said.

But gun lobbyists testified that the current bills wouldn't deter other desperate abusers.

"I don't think restraining orders or banning them from having a gun makes any difference at all. If he wants to kill her, he'll kill her. If he doesn't have a gun, he's actually more likely to use a knife … or another object," said lobbyist Jayne Weaver.

[Steeltown]

I really don't side with much of Maryland law but in this case I fully agree. IMO if a man or woman is beating on their spouse (or significant other) it's a no brainer that they have an issue with rage and if a gun is present sooner or later someone is going to be a statistic. Spousal abuse and firearms are a deadly combination and as far as I'm concerned the abuser should lose their right to have a firearm in their possession.

[CoyoteJack]

Personally I'd support the public beating to death of any man who would physically beat a woman. So I'm not going to have much empathy on their right to own a gun.

My first wife was foolish enough to hit me on two occasions and she had a fairly decent punch all things considered. I still didn't hit her back but I did warn her she'd regret doing it again after the first time. After the second time I divorced her and left her with the same amount of nothing she brought into the relationship.

[Shawn.L]

the problem is, or at least what it is here in PA, is that a PFA is issued with NO DUE PROCESS.

so, anyone at all can go get an emergency PFA against you, with no proof, no day in court, nothing, and then you cannot possess your firearms until you get it all cleared up. At your expense and time. During which time you have lost what I consider to be a basic human right.

cranky X ??? no guns for you
disgruntled employee ? no guns for you
anti neighbor? no guns for you

[NY Refugee]

There are a lot of good ideas in this, there is also a high potential for abuse.
When there is a break up there is a lot of emotion and anger involved.
NY has a law that requires the surrendering of your permit if there is a PFA. I have seen spouses get one not out of fear but out of spite just to make life as difficult as possible for the ex.
Strong arguments on both sides here.
Along with the another reason to confiscate the evil gun.

[CoyoteJack]

the problem is, or at least what it is here in PA, is that a PFA is issued with NO DUE PROCESS.

so, anyone at all can go get an emergency PFA against you, with no proof, no day in court, nothing, and then you cannot possess your firearms until you get it all cleared up. At your expense and time. During which time you have lost what I consider to be a basic human right.

cranky X ??? no guns for you
disgruntled employee ? no guns for you
anti neighbor? no guns for you

So make it a requirement that any PFA issued that contains a rider for the temporary loss of firearms be required to go through due process.

If there is supporting evidence that some coward is beating his wife or girlfriend I'd just as soon see them sent to jail than left free to continue such behavior. I have a real problem with such people. Men who beat women aren't men at all, they deserve nothing but scorn and to suffer the same abuse upon themselves tenfold.

If the punishment for such action was to be drowned in pig shit it would be fine with me.

[Shawn.L]

So make it a requirement that any PFA issued that contains a rider for the temporary loss of firearms be required to go through due process.

If there is supporting evidence that some coward is beating his wife or girlfriend I'd just as soon see them sent to jail than left free to continue such behavior. I have a real problem with such people. Men who beat women aren't men at all, they deserve nothing but scorn and to suffer the same abuse upon themselves tenfold.

If the punishment for such action was to be drowned in pig shit it would be fine with me.

i just dont see this as being effective.
lets say you have the time to go through all that, the suspect has had plenty of time to think about what they doing or going to do. to think that someone set on commiting pre-meditated murder will stop, because you tell them they arent allowed any guns....... well........ Its just not rational.

this legislation appeals directly to our emotions only, and not our reason.
who can not be against abuse?

[dc dalton]

the problem is, or at least what it is here in PA, is that a PFA is issued with NO DUE PROCESS.

Yup gotta agree with that one. A friend of mine is going through crap with his girlfriend right now (mother of his child) and she has 'hinted' at the possibility of her doing it even though she also admits he has never done any such thing.

The real problem I see with the current way a PFA is order is twofold:

1. The person is guilty until proven innocent, in direct violation of the constitution

2. All too often a PFA is used in a spiteful divorce as a means to an end, there may have never been any such violence but the person swearing out the order knows damn well they have the other party by the short and curleys

If PFAs were ordered after due process or witnessing of such an act, or there was substantial evidence to the effect I would be much more apt to go along with the idea but not the way they are mistreated now.

BTW, I always thought a fitting punishment for someone caught or convicted of beating on a woman was to drop them in the middle of a circle of guys twice their size and twice as pissed off and let the 'boys go to town' ... maybe after they are terrorized for a few hours and left in a bloody puddle they just MIGHT realize how the woman they beat on felt.

[CoyoteJack]

i just dont see this as being effective.
lets say you have the time to go through all that, the suspect has had plenty of time to think about what they doing or going to do. to think that someone set on commiting pre-meditated murder will stop, because you tell them they arent allowed any guns....... well........ Its just not rational.

this legislation appeals directly to our emotions only, and not our reason.
who can not be against abuse?

No, the ending of my last post would be appealing to my emotion but that isn't going to happen.

I understand that it wouldn't have much effect. I also understand that those intent on homicide would simply find another way.
Yet words alone cannot express the contempt I have for such people. They simply deserve no quarter whatsoever.

[Shawn.L]

how about allowing for emergency LTCF isuance for those who file for a PFA ?
Couple that with some pro-rights womens groups that could offer free training and loaner guns.
AND "stand your ground" legislation.

next guy that decides to beat on a "weak" woman gets what he has coming. No repeat offenders.

I say thats effective, and doesnt trample anyones rights.

to further "fix" the PFA situation you should have follow-up on the PFA and if the filer is found to have falisfied or abused the process there should be stiff and definate penalties.