Gun law proposal

[jcr]

[Yeah, Title is not quite accurate]

It should be an affirmative defense that if the object of a protective order is shot by the protectee while the object is within the protective zone.

Too many DV murders/assaults after protective orders; common complaint that a piece of paper offers little protection.

Yet if an abuser approaches the abused, it seems only usual rules of self-defense apply. I think I'm for loosening them.

Wouldn't the abusers be more likely to stay way if they knew they could be shot on sight? Wouldn't it cut down on the intimidation and tormenting that happens now followed by a quick exit so as to not get caught?

 

[Jose]

The flip side is that orders of protection can be filed without evidence of threat. Only the word of the accuser is enough. Hardly fair to be shot with impunity because your ex is a bitch.

 

[clinotus]

^^Yeah, years ago word on the streets was that you got the order on someone and then initiated an assault against them so that you could claim self defense.

 

[jdubois]

That would allow anybody who has a protective order against you to hunt you down and shoot you.

 

[Garys]

If it's an affirmative defense, it still means you are probably going to be arrested and tried. JCR is right that RO's offer little real protection if someone is determined to harm you. In MA, a TRO can be issued pretty easily, but I think that there has to be a hearing before a judge within 10 days to make it permanent.

The cases that I've read about are like JCR envisions in his proposal. The abuser ignores the piece of paper and attacks his victim again. About the only way to prevent that is to have a LEO sit with the victim 24/7. And we know that isn't going to happen.

Gary

 

[drgrant]

IMO it still won't do a damned thing- It ignores the fact that a vast majority of victims, unfortunately, may not realize that they will have to provide a means to protect
themselves. If the BG knows their ex-partner is "mr/mrs milquetoast" and is deathly afraid of guns, then what teeth does the law have?

A more pragmatic issue, is that even if 95% of all DV victims all of a sudden "get it" that they should have something to protect themselves with, that doesn't mean it will happen in time. The victim, if not already armed, will have to jump through the same flaming hoops the rest of us do... this means a minimum of 30+ days in most cases in MA to get an LTC or FID. This means the BG still has a considerable window of time that he knows the other person will likely be nearly defenseless. (unless the person obtains a gun illegally, but that creates other problems which are huge, especially in MA where nearly every gun law broken is a felony rap unless it involves a person who has a license. )

I still maintain that an RO is next to worthless against anything other than someone interested in harassment. Anyone who is willing to use violence against an innocent, will not
be deterred by a piece of paper.

-Mike

 

[Garys]

I still maintain that an RO is next to worthless against anything other than someone interested in harassment. Anyone who is willing to use violence against an innocent, will not
be deterred by a piece of paper.

-Mike

The bottom line, is in fact the bottom line here. ROs, like gun control laws, only effect people who are not pre disposed to violate the law. Both arise from the same liberal need to "do something" even if it's only symbolic.

Gary

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

As Deval (and now Obama) say's......."Just words".....on a piece of paper.

Kind of like a British subject yelling "Stop" or I'll yell "Stop" again!

Anyone who has issues with someone to the degree that they need a "protective order", they should be actively seeking to get trained and arm themselves
even if they must do it contrary to "Words" (laws) on a piece of paper. I know I would. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

 

[Garys]

As Deval (and now Obama) say's......."Just words".....on a piece of paper.

Kind of like a British subject yelling "Stop" or I'll yell "Stop" again!

British subjects are not allowed to shout at criminals as they might scare them. Only the police are fully trained to say, "Stop, or I shall say stop again".

Gary

 

[matt]

Isn't self defence already an affirmative defence?