Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Proposes Taking Guns Away From Domestic Assaulters

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe unveiled new legislation on Wednesday that would take guns out of the hands of owners who have been charged with domestic violence. McAuliffe is working with Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring to convince the General Assembly that their proposed legislation will help protect victims of abuse.

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence has released a report that claims that over half of the family and “intimate deaths” committed in Virginia in 2014 involved a firearm. According to the Beaumont Enterprise, the study found that 64 of the 109 domestic fatalities were carried out by a gun.

Gov. McAuliffe is using these numbers to argue that those who have committed domestic violence must not be allowed to own a gun. CBS reports that the governor has proposed four pieces of legislation to help curb domestic violence:

First, a law that would bar anyone placed under a protective from owning a gun, forcing them to turn over any firearms that they own.


The second law would bar anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or assault and battery from owning, purchasing or transporting a firearm.

Third, courts would be responsible for notifying those who have been placed under a protective order about the new gun restrictions.

Lastly, McAuliffe proposes legislation that would allow law enforcement to remove any firearms from the scene of domestic violence without a search warrant, as long as they have probable cause that the victim is in further danger.

"If these laws were passed, they would have a far-reaching effect on protecting our loved ones from harm,” says McAuliffe.

ABC reports that McAuliffe’s proposals are unlikely to be passed by the General Assembly.

Virginia Citizens Defense League president Philip Van Cleave argues that “Somebody who is determined to kill their own spouse, they don’t care what the rules are. Especially If they are willing to kill themselves after they kill their spouse, there’s nothing you can do to stop them.”

"This is a very emotional tactic that is nothing more than the new front on which to fight for the anti-gun left," says Shenandoah County Republican Rep. Todd Gilbert. "I don't believe you stop bad people from hurting other people by passing another law."

Attorney General Herring stands with McAuliffe’s proposals, Beaumont Enterprise reports.

"This question is a very simple one,” says Herring. “Do you stand with the victims of domestic violence or do you stand with their abusers? Once again legislators will have a chance to show who they stand with."

https://www.opposingviews.com/i/pol...proposes-taking-guns-away-domestic-assaulters
 
That's one of very fewest gun control law that I support - take guns away from anyone who convicted of DV.

but it don't stop assaulters from obtain gun illegally.

It make this law moot but assaulters will get severe plenty - longer prison sentence.
 
This is the norm in.canada.
Once your charged..with a domestic,,.your guns go...

Even to aquire them..you need your wifes signature...

That is charged, not convicted. While the presumption of innocence is still a well touted line...with domestic innocent or not..if charged..your guns go
If found innocent...getting thrm back is a huge pain in the ass..
 
Think it's an excellent proposal...hope it passes. ....And the 2nd one:

The second law would bar anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or assault and battery from owning, purchasing or transporting a firearm.

Love this one too!
 
Think it's an excellent proposal...hope it passes. ....And the 2nd one:

The second law would bar anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or assault and battery from owning, purchasing or transporting a firearm.

Love this one too!

but I know that NRA opposes that.

I'm no fan of NRA, anyway.
 
What is a protective order?

The way I see it...a protective order would be if someone threatened your life or property....and if they ignored the order, then they would be jailed. Same as for a DV protective order.
 
This is the norm in.canada.
Once your charged..with a domestic,,.your guns go...

Even to aquire them..you need your wifes signature...

That is charged, not convicted. While the presumption of innocence is still a well touted line...with domestic innocent or not..if charged..your guns go
If found innocent...getting thrm back is a huge pain in the ass..

There are a lot of false accusation of domestic violence for vengence or to gain power in a divorce, etc. Even just the accusation can ruin lives as the accused is not protected by law as the accuser is. Domestic violence is very sad and abusers should not have guns but taking away people rights without proof is a dangerous and unethical over reach of government power.
 
The way I see it...a protective order would be if someone threatened your life or property....and if they ignored the order, then they would be jailed. Same as for a DV protective order.

So the person who is threatened cannot own a weapon, the one that is allegedly doing the threatening, or both?
 
So the person who is threatened cannot own a weapon, the one that is allegedly doing the threatening, or both?

The person doing the threatening. To get a protective order you have to have some kind of evidence that it's needed.
 
The person doing the threatening. To get a protective order you have to have some kind of evidence that it's needed.

Okay, how is this different then a restraining order or is this just same thing under different names.

On the surface this is a good thing... but again, just because a law says you have to give something up does not mean that they will... And if the person is intent to kill another they will still do so...
Yet stabbing or bludgeoning a person is emotionally harder than shooting them... Maybe a possibility in this...
 
It differs by state but generally a restraining order regulates conduct between both parties in a divorce while the divorce is pending. They are common and keep people from doing things like empying bank accounts. They are not enforcable by the police but the issuing cort might order an offender to jail.

A protective order is more extream and desinged to prevent violence and abuse. It prevents the abuser from contacting or getting near the abused and in enforcable by the police.
 
It differs by state but generally a restraining order regulates conduct between both parties in a divorce while the divorce is pending. They are common and keep people from doing things like empying bank accounts. They are not enforcable by the police but the issuing cort might order an offender to jail.

A protective order is more extream and desinged to prevent violence and abuse. It prevents the abuser from contacting or getting near the abused and in enforcable by the police.

Interesting... Oddly never heard of them before... Closest I have run across was a stalking protection order... Thank you for answering :)
 
There are a lot of false accusation of domestic violence for vengence or to gain power in a divorce, etc. Even just the accusation can ruin lives as the accused is not protected by law as the accuser is. Domestic violence is very sad and abusers should not have guns but taking away people rights without proof is a dangerous and unethical over reach of government power.

I have to agreed with this one based on my personal experience, I was falsfied accused couple of times, good thing I could prove and other where theres no such evidence.

I am not saying that all of cases are based on retalation or revenge, I am saying that there are cases that it happens and its not justified to punish innocents.

Regardless how good the intention of laws, those who lost their mind will find a way to do whatever they wanted.
 
I have to agreed with this one based on my personal experience, I was falsfied accused couple of times, good thing I could prove and other where theres no such evidence.

I am not saying that all of cases are based on retalation or revenge, I am saying that there are cases that it happens and its not justified to punish innocents.

Regardless how good the intention of laws, those who lost their mind will find a way to do whatever they wanted.

I'm sorry to hear that. From what I've been able to gather this happens a lot. It is really sad that some people misuse a sytem designed to help people who are in dire need.
 
There are a lot of false accusation of domestic violence for vengence or to gain power in a divorce, etc. Even just the accusation can ruin lives as the accused is not protected by law as the accuser is. Domestic violence is very sad and abusers should not have guns but taking away people rights without proof is a dangerous and unethical over reach of government power.

Indeed.
Itsa huge plm. Ive personaly known some who have had their lives ruined by false accusations...besides guns..they lost their kids...

Accusations turned out to be false, in one case i know it took the courts three years to finnaly deal with it..which techniquely is a denial of due process here...but when it comes to domestic...most rules are ignored or bent to suit a certain interest. years had to pass even though they were innocent to even begin the proccess of seeing their kids again...he gave up on begging to get his guns back...as it was going know where.


While false accusations is techniquley illegal.
Rarely will women ever be charged with it.
Even when its clear as crystal the person lied.

Its a huge plm
That slowly erodes peoples confedence in an impartial legal system
 
The person doing the threatening. To get a protective order you have to have some kind of evidence that it's needed.


Up here anyway..to get a protective order, or a restrining order..
Little evedence besides the demonstration of fear and some well known key words is needed."fear for my life", "he threatened me while holding something", ""shown anger and rage to the kids".....

These orders are automatic in domestic anyway.
Unless the women really seeks to not have them...against police and womens groups preasure.


Thr order will cover not only her, but the proximity of the accused (remember not convicted or guilty) to any children. And even the actual premisis the alleged domestic assault occured...ie most likely the home.

Thus the accused must seek other places to live for the duration. Which can be and often will take years.

These orders generraly are automatic annuly meaning the accuser must seek to have them removed..or annully they are issued automaticky..
Innocent or guity.
 
First, a law that would bar anyone placed under a protective from owning a gun, forcing them to turn over any firearms that they own.


The second law would bar anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or assault and battery from owning, purchasing or transporting a firearm.

Third, courts would be responsible for notifying those who have been placed under a protective order about the new gun restrictions.

Lastly, McAuliffe proposes legislation that would allow law enforcement to remove any firearms from the scene of domestic violence without a search warrant, as long as they have probable cause that the victim is in further danger.

wait a min... I thought pretty much all states have this kind of laws... (except the last one).
 
Back
Top