NOTE: As noted in a subsequent post, Mr. Doakes is in rare error about the effect of the bills he refers to. Please see the linked post for the response from GOCRA – which includes comments from Joe Doakes indicating that he misread the law.
Unlike some bloggers, I never remove posts – but I will make sure the context is clear.
———-
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Amending the statute relating to loss of firearms rights.
Allegation of child abuse – must have actual notice of the hearing so you can attend to contest issuance of the order.
Conviction for domestic abuse, stalking – you lost your case at trial, so you had notice and could contest the verdict.
Standard ex parte 518B.01 domestic abuse restraining order – no such requirement. Your domestic partner complains and you instantly lose your right to possess any firearms, for self-defense or hunting or anything. You don’t even have to turn in the firearms – the court must order the cops to go to your house and seize them, without a warrant.
It already passed the House so it should become law this session. Ripe for abuse and unlikely to save lives. But who will stand up against it?
Joe Doakes
“Standing against” it is the easy part. Derailing a DFL political train, not so much.
The state is full of gun groups (some of them actually based in Iowa) that “stand against” this bill, loudly and with impeccable principle.
The problem, of course, is getting the votes to force changes to the bill. Some of the most noxious provisions did get stripped out early (back in March), but the DFL is waiting with the “What you support wife-beaters?” line at a moment’s notice. Count on it.
And remember – they have the votes, and leadership that owes Michael Bloomberg a victory, even a small one, after all the money they poured into this state in the past couple of years.
So some version of this bill is going to pass.
And if you’re a gun owner, the only solution is taking back the legislature with actual pro-Second-Amendment legislators.
Not posturing. Not bellowing about principle, or demanding a “constitutional carry” bill in a DFL-controlled legislature where we barely avoided a seven round magazine restriction last year.
UPDATE: More on this story tomorrow.
Isn’t your governor a divorced, gun-owning alcoholic?
PM: Yes, he is, but apparently, his wife is still loyal enough to him to fund an underground PAC, that is based on lies, zero facts and innuendo.
Boy, talk about your “crap legislation.”
“What you support wife-beaters?”
Do you mean actual wife-beaters, or ones that Rachel Stassen-Berger writes about?
“When did you stop shooting your wife?” This legislation is RIPE for abuse.
I’m still confused. This “new” law has been in practice for many years. The prohibition against possession of guns, ammo, and other weapons has pretty much been boiler plate language in OFPs for a long time. I believe it was originally designed by the late lout Lautenberg with some help, I think, from the also late Paul Wellstone. It’s even referred to as the Lautenberg law by many.
It is also pretty much automatically included in the conditions of release, pre-trial, for just about any “crime of violence”, or any other criminal allegation in which violence played a part and the incarcerated suspect wants out until court.
Consequently,prosecutors seem to include it automatically in the release conditions they impose, or request to impose, for a jailed person who must be given bail and release conditions within 48 hours of her/his arrest. If not already there, the judges seem to add it anyway. Perhaps it’s a regional thing and the circumstances I’m aware of are not universal.
So, I remain confused. Much of it has even been on the BATFE form 4473 (the form required to be completed by a person purchasing a gun from a federally licensed dealer) for years. So what has changed? Is it the optional aspect of it being included by a prosecutor or judge? I’m seeing a lot of celebrating from our enemies over a non-issue. I suppose that follows the playbook, too. Claim victory even when it didn’t occur.
Pingback: Of Those With Cow, And Those With Moo | Shot in the Dark
Pingback: Flashback | Shot in the Dark