Press release from Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (above):
LOS ANGELES – Focusing on the dangers posed by guns in domestic violence incidents–including a 500% increase in the risk the victim of abuse will be killed–today many of the nation’s leading prosecutors joined with experts in gun violence and public health to call for a major change in federal law and sweeping improvements across the country aimed at removing guns from domestic abusers . . .
In an extensive report analyzing laws, judicial practices, prosecutorial approaches and law enforcement protocols throughout America, Prosecutors Against Gun Violence (PAGV) and the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearms Policy recommended significant changes to break the link between domestic violence and gun violence.
The report’s principal recommendation is that: Federal law should be changed to prohibit purchase and possession of firearms by persons subject to temporary domestic violence restraining orders.
Moreover, prosecutors, law enforcement and courts should develop protocols for:
• Identifying domestic abusers with firearm(s);
• Ensuringing these individuals relinquish their firearm(s) once subject to a domestic violence restraining order;
• Ensuring the firearm(s) are not returned without a subsequent background check;
• Ensuring accountability when the prohibited person fails to comply with the relinquishment order.
“Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination” said Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, PAGV co-chair. “This report is a national call to action to prevent deadly domestic violence incidents through practical, data-driven solutions.”
“When an abusive partner is permitted access to firearms, the risk that the other partner – usually a woman – will be killed increases more than fivefold,” said Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., PAGV co-chair. “Restricting abusers’ access to firearms is a proven and effective means to reduce domestic violence homicides. Today’s report shines a light on local successes and dangerous gaps in the law.”
“Making sure that firearms are removed from domestic abusers will go a long way towards reducing gun violence in America,” said Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. “This report provides actionable steps so that judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers have the tools necessary to accomplish this important goal.”
“It is time for everyone, including members of Congress and members of the gun lobby, to accept the facts – guns in the home do not make you safer and, in fact, increase the risk of gun violence and death particularly in families where domestic violence is present,” said Margot Bennett, Executive Director, Women Against Gun Violence
“I applaud Prosecutors Against Gun Violence for this important report and for pushing nationally what works so well here in California,” said TuLynn Smylie, Administrative Director, Center for the Pacific Asian Family.
When an abusive partner has access to a firearm, the risk of the other partner being killed increases five times. According to studies, restricting abusers access to firearms is an effective policy, reducing domestic violence homicides as much as 25%.
The release of the report follows PAGV’s Domestic Violence and Gun Violence Summit held in Portland in October, 2015. The summit focused on the connection between incidents of domestic violence and gun violence, as well as effective, practical solutions. Prior PAGV summits were held in Atlanta and Miami.
PAGV was launched in September, 2014, by co-chairs Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. and has grown to include 37 leading prosecutors from every region of the country. The non-partisan coalition identifies and promotes prosecutorial and policy solutions to the national public health and safety crisis of gun violence.
The Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy was formed in March, 2014, and includes the nation’s leading researchers, practitioners, and advocates in gun violence prevention and mental health. The Consortium offers policy recommendations informed by the best available research that are meaningful for the victims and families affected by gun violence, and respectful of individuals with mental illness and their care providers.
To stay up to date with PAGV’s progress, join our mailing list and follow us on Facebookand Twitter.
A full copy of the report is here.
Show of hands, how many people want to sleep under the same roof as an abusive spouse?
Not to disagree, but does codependent relationship mean anything? I’m quite sure nothing will be advocated by these prosecutors in terms of assisting the “abused” party – usually a woman, as quoted, to obtain a ccw. Especially in LA County.
I do live under the same roof as an abusive spouse. But all her abuse is psychological. I’d rather take a beating!
Could be worse. Her abuse might be saaa-HEXXXual!
Time to get out.
As far as purchase after arrest or a restraining order?
Questions h and i on form 4473.
yep, free guns for the po-po.
Because no domestic abuser has ever used his or hers hands, feet, baseball bat, vehicle, blunt object, knife, rat poison or any one of the hundreds of other objects they come across in a normal day to assault or kill their spouse or significant other. Gun grabbers just got to grab.
Yes, we need to move society back to where it was before guns existed, back when there was no such thing as murder.
Or restraining orders.
Ah, yes I pine for the good old days of the eleventh century, before those damn guns were invented and humanity went straight into the shitter.
(/sarc, I hopefully don’t have to say.)
First case of domestic violence is in Genesis. Weapon of choice I believe was a rock. Confiscate the rocks.
I think DV now extends to brothers,fathers,sisters or ANY people living in the same household/address. So this is a very wide net.
It extends to significant others as well.
I’m screwed then. You should have seen the domestic violence between myself and my 4 brothers growing up. There were fights every week. I guess we should all be labeled domestic abusers and have our rights taken away.
Now you’re getting it!
This completely violates due process, just like the whole “no-fly list” BS does. The restraining order process was actually designed to circumvent due process and miraculously has survived appeals court challenges. There are two states now where a temporary restraining order is automatic upon filing divorce papers. Anytime your ex (married or not) wants to screw with you, she can file for a restraining order just because she knows that having your guns taken away hits you where it hurts.
Also, while these prosecutors seem pretty clear (and draconian) on the front end of the proposal, they are characteristically vague about the remedies on the back end for getting your rights back. This is just another end run of the Constitution. If someone is provably a danger to someone else, they should be arrested, tried and locked up. If not, they should not forfeit their rights.
That sounds like something you might call “A nation of laws”.
Two things bother me about this:
1. The use of the weasel word “many” rather than announcing exactly HOW many or giving a percentage of prosecutors who are on board with this inanity, and
2. Many (an undisclosed number) of these prosecutors, who have undergone extensive and expensive legal education and reached the (political) pinnacle of their careers who still can’t understand the simple English phrase “…shall not be infringed.” Maybe if we translate it into Latin for them? Or maybe Greek: “Molon Labe!”
Dyslexic I am…
I always read that as “Molson Label” until I do a double take.
It is time for everyone, including members of Congress and members of the gun lobby, to accept the facts – guns in the home do not make you safer
This is the most important part of her Quote. It shows her frame of mind. If having a gun doesn’t help with safety, then no one needs one. If no one needs one, then it is ok to take them away for any reason.
Step 1, step 2, Step 3.
“All your guns are belong to us.”
-The Govt.
That’s weird. Doesn’t Obama have a whole bunch of guns in his house for the express purpose of making him safer? Obama’s choldren had armed guards their school for the same reason.
Yes, but that’s different. And you shouldn’t be confusing the discussion on what the protected class has/does, just give up you guns and the government will protect you. /sarcasm/
“then it is ok to take them away for any reason.”
Or, more to the point, for *NO* reason.
Do these derps really think that abuser will just give up? How about we give the victims of abusers national constitutional carry. Or better yet just pass it for everyone.
“Do these derps really think that abuser will just give up?”
As you imply, no. They do not. This has nothing to do with domestic abuse.
Soon it will be anyone ticked for jaywalking because a car could hit you and cause an ND. More Utter BS “laws”.
Now now, people. You’re not FOR domestic violence, are you? Enough with your conspiracy theories about the government creating a pathway to seizing your guns without due process, then delaying their return for years after you’ve spent many months and dollars on attorneys and hearings, possibly in broken or banged up conditions. If you’re not doing anything wrong, you have — ooh, squirrel!
I have a solution! Just give gals with restraining orders “No Guns Allowed” signs to put on their front doors. The gov’t seems to think that’s effective for other situations, why not with this one?
So Mr. Prosecutor, either GFZs work, or they don’t. Which is it?
^Spot on.
Nicely done.
Turning their hypocrisy back on them is a great way to expose said hypocrisy.
I for one applaud the prosecutors mentiong that “domestic violence” is not “gun violence.”
So, what are they doing to reduce the “domestic violence” by anyone under a restraining order, gun or no? The “with a gun” fraction, if it tracks general violence stats, is quite small.
Wjy are then emabling so much domestic violence by ignoring it.
Because “domestic violence” is a lie as big as “rape culture”. Most domestic violence calls are fictional in that no violence has actually occurred.
They don’t but they recognize (or at least the courts and the police recognize) that there isn’t a whole lot they can do about it except to disarm the abuser of his guns and issue a stay away order, the violation of either one of which, or an actual threat of violence/harassing or actual physical violence will land the abuser at least temporarily in jail. Nothing permanent can be done until an actual assault/battery/murder. As we all know, the government has no duty or ability to protect anyone from anyone else.
Please…. it’s just the latest cause celebre’, the excuse du jour… the proof that “We’re not going to take your guns” is the big lie, and total confiscation is the end game. It’s another camel’s nose in the tent flap move. If the abuser can be proven through due process to be a danger to themselves or others the laws already in place provide for arrest or mental health hold. Confiscating guns will only serve to do one of two things, leave innocent but accused people disarmed and helpless, or leave dangerous violent citizens loose on the streets, where as Obama loves to say, anyone can easily buy a gun at a gun show or over the internet without a background check, (or in the real world from the local thug on the street corner) so as usual it will accomplish not thing one in actually reducing violence against victims of abuse.
The proof of their ingenuousness is their refusal to acknowledge that the solution to the problem they are supposedly addressing already exists and has been on the books for over 200 years: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The problem is not that the supposed “domestic abusers” have guns and are willing to use them, it is that the victims of domestic abuse do not have guns or have been convinced that they could not effectively use them in their own defense.
Liberal attorneys are not stupid. They actually do understand this concept are are simply attempting to drive a wedge into the cracks that have been allowed to erode our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA over the last 100 years in an attempt to bring that right crashing down into oblivion. Their efforts have NOTHING to do with the safety of victims of domestic abuse and everything to do with advancing statism.
Domestic violence is the only arrestable misdemeanor assault and battery. It’s basically defined as a&b against a person you’re in a relationship with, have had a relationship with, are related to, or have lived with. So an ex or a sibling or a former room mate gets mad at you says to the police “he hit me” you automatically lose your 2a rights with no due process. Here’s a great idea! Let’s just expand this to the rights protected by the 4-8th amendments that way domestic abusers are off the streets forever.
We are wasting money and losing rights over “domestic abuse”. Nobody can be forced into a domestic relationship. It’s your choice and it’s your life. Lots of women used to either live alone, live with parents or other relatives or with a female friend.
Unfortunately, there are all too many women who, for whatever reason, have their entire self-worth tied up in whether they have a “boyfriend” or husband, or not. Their willingness to hook up with someone, anyone, gives abusive pieces of human sewage the means to continue polluting the gene pool.
I can’t imagine any of the women who comment here being like that, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of ’em out there.
I think its time for the lefties to lead by example-
1) Make all Federal areas gun free zones, including police and secret service.
2) Only “Smart Guns” can be used during an active threat.
3) Any federal employee eligible for “protection” can get a “gun free zone” t-shirt for protection, and/or any secret service detail assigned can only carry weapons allowed by local jurisdictions for the common man, subject to the same approvals as any citizen of that state or community in which protection is offered.
I like the idea of “gun free zone” signs at homes to defend against domestic abuse. Or why not simply arm the “abused victim” so they can defend themselves and mandate they take defensive firearms training?
I’d like to know what percentage of homicide victims with restraining order were voluntarily violating it and freely associating with their abuser just prior to be I g murdered. I suspect the number is very high, and wonder why there isn’t a effort to enforce the orders on both parties, and to impose serious penalties on both parties when in violation. If saving lives is the point, this should be an issue, and as a bonus doesn’t violate any enumerated rights. I suspect no one will want to publicly address this, or any of the other dirty secret surrounding DV, but if it’s only being used as a stalking horse for civilian disarmament, why bother.
NRA will save us. When the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago totally overturned Illinois concealed weapons statute in Dec. 2012, NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde “got to work” on Rep. Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” HB183 carry bill and loaded it up with everything the police unions wanted: criminal penalties of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail for hundreds of gun-free zones, an unelected Star Chamber licensing review board composed of a retired federal judge, federal agents and a shrink, and Duty to Inform, so police criminals can kill armed citizens with legal cover.
Illinois carry bill already has everything the police unions wanted to control and kill armed citizens. No one could have done a better job advancing the legal infrastructure for the criminal police state, and Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA pay Vandermyde to do this. Prosecutors Against Gun Violence should hire Vandermyde to “work” for them, they have the same goals as NRA.
Or we could have ended up with local laws everywhere and your ass in jail because you didn’t have a Chicago permit
NRA’s rat Todd Vandermyde justified his treason with police unions along those lines- we had to have preemption in “our” bill. Check out the statute straight from Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 carry bill re. the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board in Illinois. I am not making this up:
“The Board shall consist of: one commissioner with at least 5 years of service as a federal judge; 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice; 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation; and one member with at least 5 years of experience as a licensed physician or clinical psychologist with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”
One judge, two shysters, three feds and a shrink. I’m sure they will know what to do with the UNLIMITED privacy waiver Phelps and Vandermyde threw in for the police unions that wanted Duty to Inform. It’s for
“officer safety” after all. Maybe Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham pay Vandermyde to pass the worst possible bills so NRA lawyers can make money off dead gun owners. NRA made $1.3 MILLION from the Otis McDonald case.
So, they are not only against the 2nd amendment, they are against the 4th and 14th amendments as well. It sounds great in the sound bites of a press conference, but it covers up what they really want, which is a law that allows them to circumvent due process. Spousal abuse is bad, but so is tyranny. My perspective is that if someone is so violent that they cannot have a gun, then they should be in jail whether that is pretrial confinement or actual prison.This is not a problem with gun ownership, this is a problem with the courts doing their job.
No no no Bob313,
Other commenters have assured me that unfounded accusations without any tangible evidence whatsoever are sufficient cause for a judge to issue an order depriving people of their rights indefinitely … and these commenters have assured me that this fully qualifies as “due process”.
Personally, I do not agree with those commenters. They suggest that the very same process produces search and arrest warrants which deprive us of our rights … and everyone accepts as “due process”. First of all, our judges damn well better not be issuing search and arrest warrants based on unfounded accusations without any tangible evidence. Even brushing that aside, a search warrant does not allow permanent exposure of our home to unlimited searching over the weeks/months leading up to a criminal trial. Similarly, an arrest warrant comes with bail and the suspect does not spend weeks/months in jail waiting for their criminal trial. In other words, even when a flimsy reason is “sufficient” for a judge to issue a search or arrest warrant, the disruption of our rights are momentary (lasting the duration of the search or a couple days until a bail hearing), not indefinite like a restraining order and associated surrender of firearms.
When there is a search warrant, we promptly regain the security of our home immediately following the search. When there is an arrest warrant, we promptly regain our freedom immediately following our bail hearing and posting bail. But when there is a domestic violence restraining order, we lose our right to keep and bear arms for several months/years with no clear remedy to remove this court ordered infringement of our rights. This is what stinks to high Heaven with domestic violence restraining orders.
I already posted previously about my 2 plus year nightmare with the criminal justice system in WI after false accusations of domestic violence against me by my former stepson, who was mentally ill. The deck is completely stacked against the accused, and there is no due process. Even after my case was finally resolved, it still took many phone calls and finally threats from my lawyer to get the local po po to release my Glock 21, and Mossberg pump.
My defense attorney told me that at the time of my initial arrest, the county was in the process of getting a million dollar grant from Fedzilla. Their success in getting the money was directly tied to creating as many cases of DV they could muster, so there was no way they were going to plead anything down to a non criminal ordinance violation, and any cases that could have dv charges added to them were piled on.
These people are cynical statists , and nothing more. I lost all respect for the system after my experience and will never call the police for anything less than a life threatening situation. I’m lucky to be in a stable marriage to a wife who has a ccw now.
Obviously there is a better solution. Since 90% [made-up stat] of domestic abusers are male, we should just preemptively lock up all males, to be checked out for a few hours at a time for fixing stuff and other f-words. Simple.
I got charged with a d.v. about 10 yrs ago. It was the mother of my oldest son. Im happily remarried and have a family. I had my son for the weekend and his mother was supposed to meet me at my job monday morning to take him to school. I sat there for an hour, and she never showed up. Couldnt take him to school because i didnt have his uniform or bookbag. After an hour i went to her apt and banged on her door. After about 10 min. the door swung open and she looked all drugged out. She grabbed my sons arm and yanked him into the apt and slammed the door. I started knocking telling her i would just keep him for the day because of her drunken state. She opened the door just enough to spit in my face, then slammed it again. I yelled some profanities and left to go to my job. When i got there, theyre was 2 police cars in front. They put me in cuffs and took me to jail. Was there for 5 days, and my bail was 10,000 dollars. I did absolutely nothing wrong. My wife and kids were upset, and my dad luckily bonded me out. After numerous courtdates, they dismissed it. My gun rights were so close to being taken from me. P.s. lawyer fees were 2000 dollars, and my sons mom didnt even show up to court!
Well, you see, there is one major and glaring issues you have to contend with in dealing with the family court system and domestic violence cases which you seem to be forgetting – you have a penis.
It’s an uphill battle from there.
Unfortunately their “extensive report analyzing laws, judicial practices, prosecutorial approaches and law enforcement protocols throughout America” didn’t run across the idea of the presumption of innocence.
Kinda necessary when you’re attempting to strip someone of a natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected right.
since most of the domestic violence is due to the economy, fix the economy!
I thought most domestic violence was due to Budweiser?
I do think these desperation tactics are showing how bad the anti-gunners are losing and know they are losing in direct assaults on 2A. Most of their activities now seem to be end-runs on COTUS, based on heart-strings-tugging “waving bloody shirts” issues. They know they need to get the people in the middle thinking emotionally and not logically. Their plans for gun ownership is not some sweeping ban/confiscation. It is “the death of a thousand cuts.”
We need to fight that fire with fire. We need more emotional arguments out there like, “The mother who defended her family with a gun.” or “The guy who saved a cop from being shot.” Those stories are out there. We’ve all heard them. But we don’t do enough with them. My biggest complaints about the NRA’s public outreach PR is: 1) They don’t do enough of it, 2) They rely too much on logical appeals and not enough on emotional, and 3) They do too much to keep the pot stirred up, which gets them more money, but does not seek to solve issues.
And what exactly happens when the accused abuser is a law enforcement officer?? Do they have their firearms confiscated as well???
My understanding is that generally they cannot possess a gun unless they are “on duty”. Given that most of them are “on call” 24/7, it’s probably a pretty meaningless restriction. And, of course, it depends on the actual statute involved. wouldn’t be surprised if there are flat-out LE exemptions out there.
I see you’re just as absof*ckinglytelty shitheadedly and dangerously clueless as your father.
I love the false equivalence between being the subject of a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and being a convicted abuser. How is this different from the no-fly list bullshit?
I just made sure my wife is competent and confident with firearms. I doubt I will ever go batshit crazy but if I do she should be pretty well prepared. Problem solved.
So, what happens when the abusee owns a gun, and still lives with the abuser? Does the abusee lose the gun, because the abuser “has access” to it? What does the abusee then do when the abuser goes on a rampage against said abusee?
[Yes, the abusee could–and should–leave the abuser ASAP, but this doesn’t happen nearly enough.]
Tell me again how registration won’t/doesn’t lead to confiscation…
37 big-city politicians out of a nation of what, 320 million? And as a prosecutor I didn’t give a tinker’s damn how Cy Vance Jr ran his office. He and his colleagues preside over the highest violent-crime rates in the nation, and I’m supposed to follow his cultural/legal/political “leadership”?
Um, where in the Second Amendment does it say that a domestic abuser cannot own or possess a firearm? Freedom is very dangerous and when you start chipping away at it the chips get bigger. Hitler decried that the Jews were not human and needed Government to take care of them thereby started denying them the same rights. Start with domestic abusers, then those on the terror watch list, then those who are suspected of being mentally unstable, then those with any criminal history, then those who do not agree with the Government, ect… Soon you won’t have the freedom (by being punished or threatened punishment) to speak against the government or thing you don’t believe or concur with oh such as gay marriage or transgender bathrooms in school or your dollars used for abortions.
We’re already there.
Getting a background check to get your own property back? That’s stupid. I guess the antis don’t get that a gun is property. It is not on loan from the government and it is my right to own it. It is also my right to due process of which these laws strip me of that right if someone were to accuse me. It’s just another tool for someone to go after their future ex and ruin their life and steal their property from them.
Juxtaposing this with the article about Pakistan, why are ‘we” now told to be against Muslims and Islamic laws, again? Or, more realistically, why the heck do we, like dumb drones, go along with the nonsense we are being told?
No surprise that prosecuters equate charges of domestic abuse (DA) with actual DA. How many men have had this charge unjustly levied against them? And even a “conviction” can be meaningless if you account for a person being threatened by persecuters with “take the lesser charge of DA versus ….” and unable to afford legal fees to prove their innocence.
As pointed out above, where does the 2A allow infringement, even if just against evil abusers? And later on, the chips get bigger, perhaps to include reckless people with poor impulse control as evidenced by a speeding ticket…. It’s a legal system, not a justice system. Remember, the Nazis (Nationalist Socialists – yo Bernie) broke no German laws. More people have died at the hands of their government (democide) than in all the wars of the 20th century. 50+ million in the former USSR, God knows how many under Mao, Pol Pot anyone? I’d rather take my chances with individuals with possible bad intent rather than an organized mob, err, government trying to keep me safe.
//rant over\\//tin foil hat firmly back in place\\
Because restraining orders prove so effective in their other iterations. Bureaucracies cannot help but be self replicating, proposing ideas that extent their purposes without attaining any substantial goals. Another reason that government needs to be reigned in.
Prosecutors Against Gun Violence could do NRA members a favor and look into the background and associations of NRA lobbyist for Illinois Todd Vandermyde. Vandermyde was a registered lobbyist for the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL. That’s the road builders union, which gave away over $330,000/ year to mostly Democratic candidates in IL. Very tight with Speaker of the IL House Mike Madigan, who according to NRA is the worst enemy of gun owners in IL.
Vandermyde’s boss was William Dugan, who was convicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010. Fitzgerald is the crime-busting U.S. Attorney brought in from New York to clean up Illinois. He convicted two IL governors, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. Since Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA-ILA don’t want to clean out their own garbage, maybe the prosecutors can take a look at Vandermyde’s associations with the 150 union. Here’s the press release from October 14, 2010.
https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2010/cg101410.htm
Great to know NRA pays money to scum like Vandermyde who worked for a union taken down by the FBI and the most crime-busting U.S. Attorney since Elliot Ness landed in Chicago. Take pride in being an NRA member!
Comments are closed.