Corrected Title: GOCRA Helps Remove Infringements From Bill

[northerner1]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 49681.html

BEGINNING OF QUOTATIONS FROM THE ARTICLE

Title: Gun restrictions on domestic abusers, stalkers gain bipartisan support in Minnesota

Minnesota could be on the verge of breakthrough changes in some of its gun laws, as a bipartisan group of lawmakers heads toward passing a bill to end firearm ownership for convicted stalkers and domestic abusers.

Minnesota already prevents convicted domestic abusers from owning handguns. The bill would broaden those restrictions to include rifles and any other firearms. It also would prohibit anyone subject to a temporary protective order from having a firearm. The measure would allow those weapons to be turned over to a friend or relative while the order is in effect.

“It’s not perfect, but it’s getting there,” said Rob Doar, a lobbyist for the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, which has dropped its objection to Schoen’s bill. “We agree with making sure the guns get out of the house.”

State Rep. David Dill, who opposed last year’s measure on background checks, said he is not quite ready to commit to supporting the new measure. He wants to make sure there is ample due process for people subject to restraining orders.

“Domestic abuse is a horrible thing, an awful thing,” said Dill, DFL-Crane Lake. “But I want to make sure there is as much due process and protection in it possible for legal, law-abiding gun owners.”

The measure has strong support from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the country’s largest gun violence prevention advocacy organization. The group was founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has poured millions of dollars of his personal fortune into the cause. Just this month, Bloomberg pledged an additional $50 million to try to match the NRA’s formidable membership base, lobbying force and campaign organization.

“You’ve got to work at it piece by piece,” Bloomberg told the New York Times.

END OF QUOTATIONS FROM THE ARTICLE


I appreciate GOCRA being on the ground at the capitol staying on top of gun-related legislation. I am hoping for some reassuring answers to these questions:

How hard is it to get a temporary restraining order on a person?

What protections does a person have in this bill that an unjust or vengeful accusation (and restraining order) doesn't deprive you of your right to self-defense?

Bloomberg's strategy is a piece by piece dismantling if the right to bear arms. Is it wise to play along?

I can imagine a situation in which a domestic abuser (the bad guy) files a restraining order against his girlfriend (the victim) so she has to give up her firearms and means of defense. Will she be able to protect herself?

[Sigfan220]

Sounds like a load of crap to me. I'm not a fan.

[Citiot]

I'm a bit confused.... GOCRA is OK with making someone turn in guns when a person files a restraining order? From what I understand, the majority of restraining orders are granted with the accused initially not able to provide input or defense. The accused can appeal the decision later (which may take a long time).

Due process?

[steve4102]

More of the Compromise Cake from the Gun Community.

[BBeckwith]

No one has actually read the bill as written have they? GOCRA with the help of their friends in the legislature inserted a due process clause.

Read Here

This bill when it was initially brought forth was a nightmare of a bill straight off Bloomberg's desk. It has been tweaked and rewritten to afford the due process. If you think it wasn't happening before I watched first hand as a judge with no due process temporarily stripped my brother of his rights on a bogus OFP.

Also I wouldn't take what is written by the Red Star as fact. There seems to be some out of context quotes and fabricated quotes attributed to Mr Doar in this article.

[Lumpy]

GOCRA fought to get both due process, and the provision that guns could be held by a third party instead of being impounded by the police (a.k.a. "good luck ever getting them back again").

[Citiot]

OK, I read it. There is a hearing where the "abusing party" can have their say. I get a little mixed up with the legalese. It almost still says you are guilty until proven innocent. This may be how laws are written. IANAL

[photogpat]

The Strib article contains a blatant misquote from Rob Doar. I listened to him talking to the writer, this was NOT what he said.

Look for a post from GOCRA on FB or on here from Rob or Andrew shortly - and I'll hold my breath that the Strib prints a correction. Completely trying to spin this as a win for gun control when in fact, its a win for our side!

Ridiculous.

[steve4102]

The Strib article contains a blatant misquote from Rob Doar. I listened to him talking to the writer, this was NOT what he said.

Look for a post from GOCRA on FB or on here from Rob or Andrew shortly - and I'll hold my breath that the Strib prints a correction. Completely trying to spin this as a win for gun control when in fact, its a win for our side!

Ridiculous.

OK I'll wait!

Looking forward to an Explanation.

[RobD]

To clarify, I did not say "It's not perfect, but it's getting close" Those words never came out of my mouth.

What I did point out was that the bill started out with infringements but Rep. Schon had been revising, and many of them were removed.

I also stated that the only way someone can be deprived of property, is through due process.

I also made it clear to Baird in NO uncertain terms that GOCRA saw this legislation accomplishing nothing, and wouldn't save any lives, as Lautenberg already disarms those who would be covered under this bill.

I'm trying to get in touch with the author now to get it corrected or removed.

[Pat Cannon]

Yeah I saw the headline on the Sunday Strib (which is showing up unsolicited on my doorstep lately), "State is close to new gun limits", and thought, what the hell, is GOCRA sleeping on the job or what? Especially when the lead sentence starts out "Minnesota could be on the verge of breakthrough changes in some of its gun laws..." But the actual changes, to the degree that I understand them, don't seem like a problem to me. And the 'third party' thing is a great relief compared with having your stuff disappear into the police evidence locker.

It still makes me a little nervous just because it's so easy to get labeled an abuser or a stalker, or mentally ill for that matter. But I still got my maroon T-shirt for when it's time to go down to the Capitol again.

[Andrew Rothman]

This is a confusing, convoluted area of law. Unfortunately, this has led to a lot of confusion.

The bill, as delivered to the Minnesota DFL by the New York City billionaire Michael Bloomberg's Minnesota lackeys, was a huge turd. Rep. Schoen and House leadership, thankfully, weren't prepared to simply accept what was handed down from the coast. We have spent many, many hours in negotiating out the infringements.

This bill, in its current form, deals with convictions, and with final domestic orders for protection. The bill does not touch ex parte orders, nor with temporary or final restraining orders.

In brief, here's what ALREADY happens now, under current state and federal law:

1. A complainant (Carol) alleges domestic abuse by boyfriend (Bob).
2. A judge grants Carol an ex parte (legalese for "one party") order for protection. It basically says that Bob can't abuse or have contact with Carol. It doesn't include anything about guns.
3. Bob gets served notice of this order.
4. Bob has an option to request a hearing to review the order. He brings his lawyer, Carol brings hers.
5. If a judge finds, in that hearing, with legal representation and argument from both sides (due process), that Bob significant threat of physical harm to Carol, the judge may make the order final for a period of time (commonly three years).
6. If that order includes findings of significant seriousness of the threat, the Wellstone Amendment (federal law) makes Bob a prohibited person.
7. Bob is responsible for getting any guns out of his possession, as he has become a prohibited person for the duration of the order. Typically, he and his lawyer have planned for this eventuality, and already had the guns removed. If not, there is an unwritten grace period of three days before anyone goes after Bob for possession.

If this bill passes in its current form, this is what will happen:

1. A complainant (Carol) alleges domestic abuse by boyfriend (Bob).
2. A judge grants Carol an ex parte (legalese for "one party") order for protection. It basically says that Bob can't abuse or have contact with Carol. It still doesn't include anything about guns.
3. Bob gets served notice of this order.
4. Bob has an option to request a hearing to review the order. He brings his lawyer, Carol brings hers.
5. If a judge finds, in that hearing, with legal representation and argument from both sides (due process), that Bob significant threat of physical harm to Carol, the judge may make the order final for a period of time (commonly three years).
6. If that order includes findings of significant seriousness of the threat, the Wellstone Amendment (federal law) makes Bob a prohibited person.
7. Bob is responsible for getting any guns out of his possession, as he has become a prohibited person for the duration of the order. Typically, he and his lawyer have planned for this eventuality, and already had the guns removed. If not, there is an unwritten grace period of three days before anyone goes after Bob for possession.Within three days, Bob has to have the guns moved to the cops, an FFL, or a third party (friend, relative, etc.). Within two days after that, the cops, FFL or third party have to notify the court in writing that the move has been made.

The bill has pretty much the same provisions for people convicted of disqualifying offenses, requiring them to get written proof that the guns are moved.

There are still some minor problems with the bill, but they seem to be on the way to getting fixed.

The bill will NOT be heard Monday -- the Strib got that wrong, too. It will likely get to the floor of the House on Wednesday.

[jgalt]

So if Bob later moves in with (due to marriage, cohabitation, etc.) Jane (or a friend, or one of his adult kids who agrees to take him in while looking for a place to stay) who legally owns firearms, maybe even has a carry permit, loses the right to possess firearms as well? Because of something a third party has done?

Unless / until we see evidence that this cannot happen, no one should be supporting this bill.

[BBeckwith]

So if Bob later moves in with (due to marriage, cohabitation, etc.) Jane (or a friend, or one of his adult kids who agrees to take him in while looking for a place to stay) who legally owns firearms, maybe even has a carry permit, loses the right to possess firearms as well? Because of something a third party has done?

Unless / until we see evidence that this cannot happen, no one should be supporting this bill.

You understand the alternate to this bill is passage of the version that Bloomberg wrote? It was introduced as a bad bill and there are not enough votes to kill it. There is no avenue to do anything else at this point in time. Sucks when one party (you don't agree with) controls all three legislative bodies.

For the record, your example is a de-facto standard practice right now.

[Andrew Rothman]

So if Bob later moves in with (due to marriage, cohabitation, etc.) Jane (or a friend, or one of his adult kids who agrees to take him in while looking for a place to stay) who legally owns firearms, maybe even has a carry permit, loses the right to possess firearms as well? Because of something a third party has done?

No. This bill ONLY says that if you become prohibited from possessing guns, you have to move your guns out of your home, and you can't turn them over, say, to your roommate:

An abusing party may not transfer firearms to a third party who resides with the abusing party.

As G. Gordon Liddy said:

August 25, 1986: Liddy's felony convictions rendered him unable to legally possess firearms. Despite this, Liddy founded G. Gordon Liddy & Associates, a private security firm. When asked how he was able to maintain such a close relationship with guns despite his status as a convicted felon, Liddy replied, "Mrs. Liddy has an extensive collection of firearms, some of which she keeps on my side of the bed."