File this under Guilty until proven innocent!

Back to web version
Sunday, Jan 10, 2010 Posted on Sat, Jan. 09, 2010
Domestic violence bill would collect guns
By Valarie Honeycutt Spears and Beth Musgrave
vhoneycutt@herald-leader.com
FRANKFORT — Kentucky sheriffs would have to collect the guns of people with domestic violence orders against them under a bill filed this week in the General Assembly.

The measure, which faces opposition from gun-ownership proponents, is another in a growing number of proposals to strengthen Kentucky's domestic violence laws after the shooting death of state worker Amanda Ross last year, allegedly by former state Rep. Steve Nunn.

House Bill 205 also creates a state law that allows judges to prohibit possession of firearms by the accused while a domestic violence order is in effect. There already is a federal law that prohibits someone who has a protective order against them from having a weapon, but that law doesn't require courts or law enforcement to confiscate a gun or other weapon.

The bill also allows those under domestic violence orders to transfer firearms to another person prior to the order being issued.

Democratic Rep. Joni Jenkins of Shively, the bill's sponsor, said Louisville already has a system that requires those with domestic violence orders to turn over their guns.

"We can do it now without this legislation," Jenkins said, but only a few jurisdictions actively collect the guns of those with domestic violence orders.

Rep. John Tilley, D-Hopkinsville, and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said there have been so many domestic-violence related bills filed this session that he's still trying to determine what bills will be heard. It's possible that some of the bills will be combined, he and Jenkins said.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, who is also a former attorney general, said he has some concerns about the bill because taking away a gun may violate someone's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"I've never seen evidence that shows that it is a deterrent," Stumbo said of requiring those with DVOs to turn over their guns. He is pushing a bill that would allow judges to order global positioning devices to track those accused in the most serious domestic violence cases.

Although Kentucky now has no state law regarding the possession of weapons by a person who has a domestic violence order against them, judges often address the issue specifically if an allegation includes information about weapons. In Nunn's case, Fayette Family Court Judge Tim Philpot specifically said Nunn could not have a gun.

Ross had gone to the courts to get first a protective order and then later a domestic violence order filed against Nunn, who has pleaded not guilty to the Sept. 11 shooting of Ross.

Other proposed bills now under consideration would allow dating couples to get domestic violence orders, require counseling for people convicted of domestic violence and make the act of strangulation a felony.

© 2010 Kentucky.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.kentucky.com

[Tyburn]

whats the problem. Dont commit domestic violence, and you dont loose your guns.

surely you dont approve of domestic violence surely if your convicted of domestic violence you have had your guilt proven

would you let someone convicted of armed robbery keep their guns??

Originally Posted by Tyburn

whats the problem. Dont commit domestic violence, and you dont loose your guns.

surely you dont approve of domestic violence surely if your convicted of domestic violence you have had your guilt proven

would you let someone convicted of armed robbery keep their guns??

They can have a PO slapped on them with just a request! If someone has actually had their day in court and been convicted by the evidence then that's different! But this is talking about losing your rights without even being convicted! It can cut both ways. Its not uncommon in a divorce case for both lawyers to request a protective order. From my understanding all that has to happen is for a spouse to ask for one and they shall receive. So meanwhile someone looses their property and their tools to self defense all because someone made an accusation! Now lets suppose the guy is a crazy vindictive sort. He can file for a Protective Order have the women's firearm taken making her easy prey whenever he shows up to slap her around. Then there's always the potential for a crazy Wife in a divorce case to file for a PO,get her husbands guns taken then get either a Brother or new Boy Friend to beat up the unarmed victim. You see it can hurt both Male and female. Then on top of that theirs the principal that they can do that before you even have your day in court! I am not trying to defend convicted criminals! Hope this clarifies the issue!

[Tyburn]

So you dont have to go to court, to get a court order

A protective order is basically an order to stay away from a certain person! In cases of domestic violence its theoretically suppose to protect someone. That is separate from any conviction and alot of times the PO is filed for before the trial date. If convicted of domestic violence now I think the convicted party usually goes to jail! Oh and some of the rules vary from state to state!

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by KENTUCKYREDBONE

A protective order is basically an order to stay away from a certain person! In cases of domestic violence its theoretically suppose to protect someone. That is separate from any conviction and alot of times the PO is filed for before the trial date. If convicted of domestic violence now I think the convicted party usually goes to jail! Oh and some of the rules vary from state to state!

Is it certain there will always be a Trial if a protective order is filed for?

if so, then fair enough, a while without a gun before the trial will do you no harm, because if you are then prooved innocent presumably they give it back, and then you can seek damages from the prosecution.

but if not...then...I can see your point

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

whats the problem. Dont commit domestic violence, and you dont loose your guns.

surely you dont approve of domestic violence surely if your convicted of domestic violence you have had your guilt proven

would you let someone convicted of armed robbery keep their guns??

Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.

Do all these claims lead to a criminal trial you CAN pennalize someone whilst investigations are in process. IF every one of these complaints lead to trial then there is no harm in suspending the persons access to firearms until the time of trial.

BUT if there is no Trial...then its a load of popycot because anyone can make a claim.

Afterall...if you are accused of missconduct wherever you work, its perfectly acceptable for the business to suspend you from active duty until the trial that proves your innocence or guilt one way or the other. So the legitamcy really is based on whether these things go to trial or not.

[Bonnie]

There are women out there unfortunately who will, without conscience, vindictively accuse her boyfriend or husband of domestic violence. I think women who do that should face harsh consequences (jail time) for their false accusations and the harm they intentionally cause.

On the flip side, how many women have filed "protective orders" only to be killed. More often than not it is a useless piece of paper that does little to stop the man intent on harming or killing the woman. There have been countless cases such as this and even movies made of these real life stories. Just as in the case of POs, I doubt that any law will stop a man from getting a gun who is intent on shooting/killing his intended victim.

We had a case in our town where a wife had gone to court to file against her husband. She was coming down the court house steps (with law enforcement personnel all around) when her husband (a sheriff's deputy) shot and killed her with his service revolver. A guy went to a woman's shelter where his wife and kids had gone to hide from him and shot and killed her.

It would be great if they could put laws into place that actually did what they were intended to do without infringing on anyone's rights. I'm for our right to bear arms. I'm equally for a woman in a domestic violence situation not having to fear for her life in having those arms used against her. Seems a tall order for our legislators to find a way to protect both without doing harm to either.

Oh and by the way, have you ever heard of a "man's shelter"...

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by NateR

Well the problem is that men are guilty until proven guilty when it comes to domestic violence claims. Basically, as one local police officer put it when talking with a husband who was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his own wife. "I she says it, then you did it."

This is the problem with a law like this. You don't penalize someone based solely on accusations or suspicion. Unless you can prove the claims in a court of law, then the man is innocent. Period.

This is very true. In cases of husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. the male is almost always the one at fault regardless of evidence. Burden of proof tends to get thrown right out the window in accusations such as this.