Friday, June 21, 2013

Oregon Domestic Abusers Will Now Have to Surrender their Guns - Sort of

 Oregon Live

Oregon judges for nearly two decades have had the authority to order people to surrender their guns after they're served with domestic violence restraining orders. 

But the orders have mostly languished. 

Now, a year-long collaborative effort between Multnomah County judges, law enforcement, prosecutors and Portland city officials, has led this week to new court-reporting requirements and selected sites where the restraining order recipients can surrender firearms. 

One of the problems they faced, supposedly is they had no place to store the surrendered guns.  I suppose the police property shed where they put the confiscated drugs and other evidence wouldn't have worked.

Then, when resolving that nearly insurmountable problem they decided to allow the unfit wife-beaters to transfer their guns to a third party. No one is talking about how that would still provide them access to their guns in many cases.

Or, they can transfer their firearms to a friend or relative who must pass an Oregon State Police background check and sign a notarized affidavit.

What a joke. I can't wait to hear all the usual pro-gun commenters justify this pathetic nonsense, even though they'll do so at the risk of seeming to support domestic abusers.

I've always said there's very little difference between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners. The huge overlap between the two are what I call hidden criminals.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

30 comments:

  1. I've said this before: Once a person has been convicted of the crime of domestic violence, the abuser belongs in prison for an extended period of time. Restraining orders get served all the time as a part of divorce proceedings and other kinds of disputes. But once due process is satisfied, put people who are guilty of actual crimes of violence away. Then we won't have to worry about them wandering the streets with knives, guns, bottles of acid, gasoline, or a forklift with a crate of rubber duckies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the violent offenders who are awaiting trial? As usual you've offered a simplistic solution to a complex problem, of course, going to great lengths to protect gun owners, even the bad ones.

      Delete
    2. Violent offenders are commonly told they can't posess weapons as part of their pre trial release. If they want to stay out of jail, they need to follow the rules.

      Delete
    3. You have heard of innocent until proven guilty, right? If someone is a danger, then the prosecution should seek to have bail denied.

      One of the many differences between us is that I want the smallest possible solution to a problem, while you want sweeping changes that will affect lots of people who weren't involved in the original problem.

      You call my proposals simplistic, but the truth is that you have simple-minded ideas with complicated answers to fantasies.

      Delete
    4. Greg, you're the one who wants sweeping changes. The ridiculous idea that people who can't be trusted with guns can't be trusted to be out of jail sounds good but it's not practical.

      Like much of your argument, it sounds good but doesn't really make sense.

      Delete
    5. Because they're totally safe out of jail as long as they don't have a gun.

      Or at least reasonably safe. I'm mean, they can't possibly murder a witness or spree kill a whole theater worth of people unless they have a gun.

      Delete
    6. Like much of your argument, it sounds good but doesn't really make sense.

      Are you planning to explain the rationale behind your contention about the supposed invalidity of the argument that people so evil and malignant as to not be trusted with guns are perfectly safe to be allowed to run free in society without them? Or are we just supposed to believe it because you say so?

      Delete
    7. Asked and answered many times.

      Your idea that anyone who is not locked up should be allowed to own a gun is ridiculous. It's a simplistic, glib sound-bite, nothing more.

      I'm not going to bother naming all the types of people who are not capable of responsible gun ownership but who are not dangerous enough that they require incarceration or institutionalization.

      Delete
    8. Mikeb, we were talking about domestic abusers, not everyone. I said that people who are convicted of domestic violence should be put away for a long time. How is that simplistic? I'm agreeing that domestic violence is a serious crime, one that our society hasn't taken seriously enough. Can't you stop being contentious and agree with what I'm saying here?

      Delete
    9. Can't you see, Kurt: Guns send out brainwaves that will make these marginally violent people lash out, but gasoline, flares, wedges, etc. can't send out those brainwaves.

      Delete
    10. Can't you see, Kurt: Guns send out brainwaves that will make these marginally violent people lash out, but gasoline, flares, wedges, etc. can't send out those brainwaves.

      Ah, yes--of course. How silly of me to forget.

      Delete
  2. "What a joke. I can't wait to hear all the usual pro-gun commenters justify this pathetic nonsense, even though they'll do so at the risk of seeming to support domestic abusers."

    So is it a joke because the police cant come in and search your house as part of a civil order? Or are you unhappy about the option to transfer firearms to a third party?
    The third party undergoes a background check and signs a sworn statement that he has taken possession of the firearms. If the person named in the restraining order is found with the firearms in his possession, then the third party could be charged with transferring a firearm to a prohibited person at either a state or federal level.
    This does rely on the honesty on the part of the owner of the firearms. He could simply say he doesn't own any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, he could say that, or he could sell the guns to his brother and still have access to them.

      Delete
    2. Ok, so the person named in the protection order tells the judge "under oath" that he sold the guns to his brother. Then brother gives him access to his guns. He get caught with one of his old guns and is charged with possession by a prohibited person. Then brother gets charged with transferring a firearm to a prohibited person. And if he changes his story, they could throw in perjury.
      Keep in mind that a restraining order is a civil action and has a lower burden of proof than a criminal charge. And it isn't permanent.

      Delete
    3. So, on the basis of nothing more than a restraining order, which I've seen issued on tiny amounts of evidence that was later proved false, the person should lose the entire investment in their firearms because otherwise the person they transfer the guns to might break the law.

      Delete
    4. The law has no teeth unless it requires that the guns be disposed of. I'd say either they get surrendered to the cops and go into the police property shed or they are sold to an FFL guy who is not a family member.

      Delete
    5. So your problem isn't with the selling of the guns with a background check, it's that they might sell them to a family member.


      And there's no way that family member could buy the guns from the FFL . . .

      Delete
    6. Yes, that is a problem. That's why in the past I've suggested that when one member of a family is disqualified from gun ownership everyone else in the house should be disarmed too.

      The problem is access to guns by the wrong person regardless of who owns them.

      Delete
    7. Oh, yes, you, Mikeb, would support violating the rights of everyone in a house because of one person. Are you sure you didn't mean country instead of house?

      Delete
    8. So is this family member disqualification just for family members in the house, or is the person not allowed to sell one of the guns to his brother who lives in another city?

      And what's to keep that brother from buying that gun from the FFL if he really wants it? (Say, it's granddad's rifle or something.)

      Just trying to figure out what rule you're wanting. First you're complaining about rules allowing liquidation of a collection, then you don't want family members to access the guns, now it's household members who you want to be completely stripped of their rights due to the crime of another.

      Delete
  3. . . . even though they'll do so at the risk of seeming to support domestic abusers.

    That "risk" is hardly worrisome, since no one worthy of any respect would believe that this constitutes "support [of] domestic abusers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems you cannot leave a single fucking comment without including something like this: "no one worthy of any respect."

      With my comment moderation I've succeeded in teaching you to stop calling me offensive names. Now, we're gonna take it a step further. No more insults, period.

      See if you can handle that, Kurt. You'll still get to respond to all the posts, it just won't be as entertaining.

      Delete
  4. A shed? Shouldn't they have to store them in a bank vault, like you require of gun shops?

    Are you suggesting that someone who becomes a prohibited person should not be allowed to sell their collection and recover their investment when selling to a private party with a background check?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I've always said there's very little difference between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners."


    Earlier it was "Most gun owners agree with us on gun control."


    So, Which is it? Just whichever one is most convenient at the moment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, criminals do tend to support gun control.

      Delete
    2. T., I don't get your question. Which is it? It's both.

      Delete
    3. I'll just let you keep mulling over those statements and why the one might tend to drive more people our direction than toward gun control.

      Delete
  6. I've always said there's very little difference between lawful gun owners and criminal gun owners.

    And you wonder why lawful gun owners take your vitriol personally.

    Anyone more intelligent than the average tapeworm would know that the vastly more rational and moral version would be, "There's very little difference between criminal gun owners and criminal non-gun owners."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Kurt, although there's big difference between the worst criminal with a gun and the most responsible gun owner, generally speaking, you guys are all 1st cousins, cousins of the gun.

      Delete
    2. Ah, yes. The gun is evil! Guns corrupt, and anyone who has anything to do with them is still related to Uncle Joe and Hitler, and totally outside the camp of those blessed, righteous people who never touch the evil, corrupting things.


      You go on and on about not being "anti-gun," but then you come out with this tripe and it shows your real attitude of hatred of anyone who dares touch the evil firesticks.

      This is why, in spite of all of your protestations that you don't want to ban all guns, readers can see through the obfuscation and know not to allow any bill you like to be passed. After all, however responsible they are, you still view them as closely related to serial killers (at least those who use a gun--not slashers) and spree shooters.

      Please, keep saying things like this. All we have to do, when we encounter a gun owner who says, "I think universal background checks is a good idea, and I'm not paranoid about the government knowing what I have," is show them some comments like this from you, Feinstein, Bloomberg, et al. and they usually rethink their position. No misrepresentations of what you say, just the raw quote.

      Sorry bout your foot that you just shot your self in . . . you know, with your bow and arrow, because at least it is pure and good.

      Delete