Everytown at it again

Joined
Feb 21, 2012
Messages
5,065
Likes
709
Location
Somerset, Ma
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
http://m.providencejournal.com/article/20150616/NEWS/150619505

It continues for two more pages, but the gist of it them complaining that police are not instantly dispatched to someone's home the instant a RO is issued.


PROVIDENCE, R.I. *— A review of all domestic violence restraining orders issued in Rhode Island for the past two years found that judges rarely require suspects to turn in their firearms, even when the alleged victims say there are firearms present or that they've been threatened with a gun.

Of the 1,609 protective orders granted from 2012 to 2014, Rhode Island judges ordered the suspects to surrender firearms in just 5 percent of the cases. The results varied from court to court, with Kent County District Court and Washington County District Court judges ordering guns surrendered at far higher rates than judges in*the remaining six district and family courts.

The research comes from Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that has lobbied for gun-control bills now languishing at the General Assembly, including legislation that would require people convicted of domestic violence crimes and subject to restraining orders to surrender their firearms. Everytown released the research and its data to The Journal first.

While federal law prohibits people under domestic violence protective orders from buying or possessing guns, there's no provision for how the guns are surrendered, and in Rhode Island, the matter is left to a judge's discretion.*Everytown wanted to see how that discretion is applied, said its research director, Ted Alcorn.

What they found, Alcorn said, was a "wake-up call."*

Visiting each courthouse, the researchers collected the 1,609 final protective orders, totaling more than 22,000 pages.*They reviewed all of the handwritten complaints and the judges' final orders, looking for key points, Alcorn said. Did the person seeking the order mention the presence of guns, threats against themselves or their children, or ask the court to remove the guns? When the judge granted the restraining order, was the suspect also told to surrender any firearms?

"When you see the narratives, they tell a powerful story," Alcorn said.*

One was a Providence woman with young children, who wrote that her estranged husband broke into her home and said he was going back to his truck to get his guns. In another, a woman said the man threatened to "blow my head off" and made her lay on the floor of his apartment with a gun to her head and "said he could put a bullet in my head and leave me there." In both cases, the judges granted restraining orders but didn't require the men to surrender their firearms.



Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
 
"Of the 1,609 protective orders granted from 2012 to 2014, Rhode Island judges ordered the suspects to surrender firearms in just 5 percent of the cases."

So that's like, eighty-one cases. By their logic, there were 1528 murders in RI by all the other people (men, obviously) who had restraining orders against them and DIDN'T have their guns confiscated without due process

Funny, none of them seemed to have made the news.
 
Last edited:
"Of the 1,609 protective orders granted from 2012 to 2014, Rhode Island judges ordered the suspects to surrender firearms in just 5 percent of the cases. "

Maybe the judges thought the reason for the RO was BS.
 
yet for all the money they spend, they do nothing, absolutely nothing to help victims of domestic violence. this is ALL politics and so that some stay at home moms with nothing else to do can feel important.

and no I'm not knocking stay at home moms, just the ones I met at the gun control hearings who were VERY CLEARLY just bored housewives with husbands who ditched them for some strange a long time ago.

yes, angelking is being sexist. No, angelking doesn't care. Yes, angelking approves this message.
 
the whole RO process is a joke. My wife's brother's wife had him arrested for a domestic thing even though he never touched her. She's a hot headed italian east boston girl who gets up in his face and screams at him. He walked away but bumped into her and she called the cops and said he "pushed her around". He was dragged out of the house in cuffs and humiliated in front of the whole neighborhood.

She then filed and RO and he basically lost all his rights instantaneously with no due process whatsoever. Lost his parental rights with the flick of pen based on the whim of a psycho bitch. This guy is seriously the nicest and most gentle guy ever. His wife is a lunatic and now he's up to his eyeballs in legal bills to try to retain some paternal rights to his daughter.

All she had to do is walk into PD, lie, and sign a form and BOOM daddy's rights are gone. Such a ****ed up system.
 
SOME, yes but I doubt I encountered any at the rallies.

What I encountered were easily lead women (and quite a few beta type males) who listened to a paid hack encourage them to go and fight the likes of you and I because we, not the ****ing gangs, not the ****ing illegals, not the ****ing dope dealers, pimps, dog fighters and psychopaths, were evil, armed and dangerous to all living things, especially children.

I have a ****ing son and I was called a ****ing baby killing Neanderthal by these ****ing *******s. And they get off (gross) on insisting that they're doing something valuable for women. REALLY!? where are they at the domestic violence shelters? Are they ****ing volunteering? ARe they working in their communities to help educate women and girls on dv, rape, date rape....or are they just using the victims as a means to an end with no intention of helping them.

I think the answer is obvious, yet Im the ****ing monster for wanting to retain my civil rights. Im the ****ing monster for defying their ignorant will and daring to say that my life has meaning, that my son and my wife have meaning - more so than the evil prick that would want to hurt them, the same guy that they'd be loathe to apply any measure of harsh sentencing due to their own feelings of white guilt, class guilt or whatever malady affects their myopic and ignorant brain cell (s).

Yet I'm the Neanderthal. I'm the Neanderthal when they won't lift one single cruller stained finger to actually help victims themselves.

**** this.



No, some of them are very well paid to do their dirty work.
 
They got the Journal to print that advocacy "journalism" hit piece on the run up to legislative hearings on their pet DV bills. Senate hearing is tomorrow (Thursday), and the bills will probably get rammed through in the last hours of this year's session. It's how they get all their crap sandwitch bills passed, in the wee hours of the morning at the end of the session.
 
Probably 5%.. Same amount that had their firearms confiscated. Isn't RI LTC somewhere around 2% of the overall population? If that's true 5% would be high

Sure, but gun owners are notoriously violent and thus more likely to abuse their women. Probably more like 5% of restrainees *don't* have AK-47s stacked at the door and Glocks in their shorts.
 
"Of the 1,609 protective orders granted from 2012 to 2014, Rhode Island judges ordered the suspects to surrender firearms in just 5 percent of the cases. "

Maybe the judges thought the reason for the RO was BS.

5% of 1609 = 81 Cases, rounding up.

What percentage of the 1609 actually had permits in RI, which could have triggered a judge to order weapons removed? Supposedly there are guns in 12.8% of RI homes. That means that 206 of those may have had guns in the home, assuming that gun ownership neither goes for/against RO's. At that rate 81/206 = 39% And this is a simple illustration of the lies. I think it could probably be argued that this number includes those with a proclivity to violence, which means they might already be PP's? How does that change the math?
 
5% of 1609 = 81 Cases, rounding up.

What percentage of the 1609 actually had permits in RI, which could have triggered a judge to order weapons removed? Supposedly there are guns in 12.8% of RI homes. That means that 206 of those may have had guns in the home, assuming that gun ownership neither goes for/against RO's. At that rate 81/206 = 39% And this is a simple illustration of the lies. I think it could probably be argued that this number includes those with a proclivity to violence, which means they might already be PP's? How does that change the math?

You're right. They are trying to make you believe that all the RO's had some relationship toward licensed gun owners. Definitely not true...
 
also, they're trying to paint a picture of RO + gun owner = murder/violence and they're not backing it up with any real stats rather it's, "Oh my god, judges refused to stomp peoples rights b/c of an RO"
 
5% of 1609 = 81 Cases, rounding up.

What percentage of the 1609 actually had permits in RI, which could have triggered a judge to order weapons removed? Supposedly there are guns in 12.8% of RI homes. That means that 206 of those may have had guns in the home, assuming that gun ownership neither goes for/against RO's. At that rate 81/206 = 39% And this is a simple illustration of the lies. I think it could probably be argued that this number includes those with a proclivity to violence, which means they might already be PP's? How does that change the math?

You also need to figure in the number of repeat offenders in DV cases where the offender is already a federally PP.

I would say there is a high probability that the 81 cases represents the majority not just 5% or 39%.
 
also, they're trying to paint a picture of RO + gun owner = murder/violence and they're not backing it up with any real stats rather it's, "Oh my god, judges refused to stomp peoples rights b/c of an RO"

In Connecticut, they were working hard this past legislative session on SB 650; the "ex-parte temporary restraining order". If a member of your household, or family managed to get a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER taken out against you, which requires a sworn complaint which you don't get to contest until you get to court; further actions would be taken if you had a gun permit. Specifically, the temporary restraining order would be served by a police officer, and your firearms, ammunition and permit would be seized immediately.

The temporary restraining order was to be good for 14 days, during which time you were supposed to get a hearing before a judge. Interestingly enough, you weren't able to contest anything until that time, and there seemed in my readings of the bill to be no provisions made to get your permit or property back.

Furthermore, if you did manage to get your permit back, you would be unable to get any "assault weapons" back, because you coudn't have them "transferred" back to you - that would violate existing firearms law.

This law DID NOT PASS. Hopefully the scumbags won't try to tack it on when they go back to screw around with the budget again...
 
This study obviously needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I heard from a couple of sources that Everytown posted on Craigslist that they were looking for people to do their "research" (they would pay them), but I don't see anything listed on Craigslist now. I wish someone had printed/saved those ads since I think their "research" would lose credibility with the legislators that will have to listen to their BS tomorrow (RI Senate).
 
Back
Top Bottom