In Some States, Gun Rights Trump Orders of Protection
Rajah Bose for The New York Times
Stephanie Holten of Washington
State says she is still seeing a counselor to work through trauma from
when her ex-husband, Corey Holten, held her at gunpoint in her home last
year.
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: March 17, 2013 1138 Comments
Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her
former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to
obtain a temporary order for protection.
Multimedia
Related
-
Latest Updates on the Gun Violence Debate (March 6, 2013)
FIREPOWER
Reporter Michael Luo's 2011 series exploring the gaps in gun laws and their impact on public safety.
See Articles in This Series »
Washington State Department of Corrections
Ms. Holten had recently applied for and obtained an order for protection against Mr. Holten.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth
and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would
“put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat
block letters she wrote, “ He owns guns, I am scared.”
The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of
his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What
it did not require him to do was surrender his guns.
About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying
in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two
children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several
months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her
chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to
kill her.
“I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in a
statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m
going to die!”
Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under a blanket on the couch. The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life
and quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs
with their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten
cowering, hysterical, on the floor.
For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented.
Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection
order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not
the case in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of
the influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies.
Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter
laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted
in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner,
that hand is more often than not holding a gun.
In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear
arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life.
In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other
gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender
of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun
ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped
away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly
not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators,
for the “mere issuance of court orders.”
That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in
Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are
included in gun control legislation being debated in several states.
Among them is Washington, where current law gives judges issuing civil
protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms
if, for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public
health. But records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making
the state a useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as
the politics, of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment
rights.
By analyzing a number of Washington databases, The New York Times
identified scores of gun-related crimes committed by people subject to
recently issued civil protection orders, including murder, attempted
murder and kidnapping. In at least five instances over the last decade,
women were shot to death less than a month after obtaining protection
orders. In at least a half-dozen other killings, the victim was not the
person being protected but someone else. There were dozens of
gun-related assaults like the one Ms. Holten endured.
The analysis — which crosschecked protective orders against arrest and
conviction data, along with fatality lists compiled by the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
— represents at best a partial accounting of such situations because of
limitations in the data. The databases were missing some orders that
have expired or been terminated. They also did not flag the use of
firearms in specific crimes, so identifying cases required combing
through court records.
Washington’s criminal statutes, however, contain a number of
gun-specific charges, like unlawful possession of a firearm and aiming
or discharging one, offering another window into the problem. Last year,
The Times found, more than 50 people facing protection orders issued
since 2011 were arrested on one of these gun charges.
In some instances, of course, laws mandating the surrender of firearms
might have done nothing to prevent an attack. Sometimes the gun used was
not the one cited in the petition. In other cases, no mention of guns
was ever made. But in many cases, upon close scrutiny, stricter laws
governing protective orders and firearms might very well have made a
difference.
Try unlimited access to NYTimes.com for just 99¢. SEE OPTIONS »
- John
- Sacramento
So you suggest that a constintutional right be stripped on the basis of merely an accusation and request to the court? Remember, all it takes to get a restraining order is accusing someone and asking the court. There is no trial, no due process, none of those protections we firmly believe in. It's also grossly naive to think that someone who is murderous will "surrender their weapons" voluntarily.
This is another "blame the men" article in the court of public opinion. I'm disappointed, that of all papers, our liberal lady in grey advocates stripping rights without even a trial.
- Wanda
- Somerset
In Kentucky game wardens can take guns away from someone caught poaching or shooting across the roadway. But those are turkeys, not women. This year already, a man bought a gun and within hours, during the transfer of children from the mother for a visit, he gunned down his wife, her uncle, and her 12-year-old cousin as they sat in the car--on a community college campus--waiting. But please, let's not pass laws, because killers won't obey them. Someone who should have had better sense said he would likely have killed her anyway, but there was no waiting period, no word to her that he was trying to purchase a gun. She was afraid of him and took others with her, but it didn't do any good. Are we really this helpless?- Jonathan
- NYC
- Verified
The problem with these orders is that they do not come from a trial, no evidence is presented, and they are not adversarial proceedings. You can allege anything against anyone, and you will get an order. The person against whom the allegations are made has no chance to state his side of the case. The judges simply do not view these orders as a punishment for which due process of law is required.
Such orders may very well be necessary in an emergency, but they should not be used as a basis of depriving anyone of his civil rights.- Robert Weidner
- Springfield,Ohio
The people who have guns and are mentally unstable should have their guns taken away. However they, being unstable will go find a gun somewhere and do what unstable people do. Since we are seeing more and more of this type murder by the unstable, it is a dilemma. I choose to protect my home with a gun. I am and have been proficient with all kinds of weapons since my army training. I don't feel the need to carry one wherever I go, but I know where they are if I must protect my self.
I don't need an ak 47. I think my police should have them. I do believe in self protection, not agggression. I also believe my having a gun in my home is one of my freedoms I do not want to lose. History is a great teacher if we learn from it.- Duncan Lennox
- Canada
It is money that drives the NRA. Money from the people who benefit from making guns. End all lobbying and fix the nation.- Hank Fitzgerald
- Dallas, TX
Your position seems to be that 'all guns are bad' and that, by extension, gun owners are bad. This is pure ignorance. My bipolar ex-wife went off her meds and decided she would pack up a moving van in the middle of the night, steal as much of my vital business paperwork as she could grab and head off to an old boyfriend's place in California. Upon her arrival she filed for separation and claimed spousal abuse and that she 'felt threatened'. This was a ploy to move her case up the docket. Fortunately, I had the good sense to file for divorce here before she filed in California and establish a jurisdiction. Neverless, the gun hating judge in California granted a restraining order for 2 years and told the Texas court I should surrender my guns. The Texas judge laughed and threw it out. There was no evidence of violence, never a police report and no persoanl history of any offenses. My ex, on the hand, has actually been arrested for spousal abuse of her previous husband. Yes, I know, marrying her was a mistake which I set about to correct. But our society immediately assumes the man is violent, the woman is threatened and the gun is dangerous. Use your heads, people. Critical thinking is not dead. There are two sides to every story.- EveT
- Connecticut
Having been in an abusive relationship with a boyfriend who said he had a gun, I got chills reading this story. A person who has threatened a partner seriously enough that a protective order is given should not be allowed access to firearms. The threshold for getting a protective order is fairly high. If a partner's actions are bad enough to cross that threshold, that person's guns should be confiscated as part of the protection afforded the victim of the threats.
- Jeff Maloney
- Kansas City, Mo.
I hate the NRA and suport greater restrictions on firearms. That said, as a lawyer, I must note that there would be some unintended consequences of a law barring those subject to a protective order from having a firearm and a certain degree of unfairness.
To begin with, obtaining an ex parte order (an order granted without hearing) is very easy. And when the accused abuser is given a hearing within a few weeks, it 's hard for the accused to prevail. No court wants to dissolve an ex parte order and see the victim subject to further abuse. Better safe than sorry.
Next, protective orders, sometimes called a poor person's divorce, can be abused. A person (usually a woman), without an attorney, can report abuse.. It can be as little as saying he has a bad temper and I am afraid of him, and they are granted a protective order that gets the other person out of the house and imposes child support. That enough of a divorce for a lot of people. Fighting such an accusation without an attorney is nearly impossible.
Finally, adding additional restrictions will result in more resistance to the orders. If the only effect of the order is to keep two people apart, many men subject to an ex parte order will agree to allow the full order of protection to take effect. By that point, they have no more desire to associate with the complainant. If the order, which in Missouri last for a year, means no hunting for a year, there will be more incentive to fight its imposition.- Siestasis
- Sarasota Fl
I come from a hunting family, my father, brothers, uncles and grandfathers all hunted, all owned hunting rifles. The NRA does not represent my relatives, it represents the gun manufacturers and the "bunker" crowd. It is absolutely ignorant to allow individuals who have threated the lives of others to have access to guns. When I hear the leaders of the NRA speak I wonder where there minds are, I believe they are in the pockets of the gun manufacturers.- tea at three
- New Mexico
Domestic violence resulting in gun crime is a huge problem in New Mexico. The NRA has a robust following in the state. Most gun crime between spouses and partners are crimes perpetrated against the wife or girlfriend. There has been much discussion in general over guns in the hands of the mentally ill yet, little discussion on this topic regarding people who use guns to disable, or murder their partners and families. Are people who abuse partners unpredictable in behavior, potentially lethal to them, or as I have heard said, passionately male or, simply acting like men. Mentally ill seems most accurate to me and when an order of protection is issued, guns owned by the abuser should be temporarily confiscated by the authorities. At minimum, the abuser receives a strong message that his threats are taken seriously by law enforcement, giving him pause for thought regarding his threats. And ultimately, through temporary gun confiscation, lives may well be saved.- Tom
- Port Washington
I'm not an NRA supporter, and I don't own a gun, but I'm with the NRA on this one. Temporary orders of protection are commonly used, or abused, by women for leverage in divorce cases, and are issued without evidence or investigation. Most judges will issue a TOP to be on the safe side and let an investigation determine whether it should be converted to permanent. It is not appropriate to suspend the civil liberties, any civil liberty, of a man who is the victim of such abuse of the law without due process.
But what of the rare cases where a man subject to a TOP turns out to be genuinely a threat (a minority of cases),a gun owner (a smaller minority), and willing to turn that weapon on his spouse (yet even smaller)? Such a rare but granted real threat is not sufficient for the suspension of civil liberties. And surely the Times can more readily identify hundreds,if not thousands of cases in the same time period where nothing happened. And how hard did the Times look for a case where a man subject to a TOP was forced to surrender his guns and was subsequently the victim of a violent crime? I bet this wasn't even considered.- Nate
- Cambridge, MA
Mr. Luo claims: "For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented. Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order would have forced him to relinquish his firearms."
Might well have been prevented? Does someone who assaulted his wife at gunpoint 12 hours after getting a court order seem like the sort who would voluntarily comply with an order to turn in his guns? There's no chance that law would have prevented this situation - which goes to the point that gun laws are ineffective precisely because they primarily affect people who follow laws, not those who ignore them.- Sofia
- Brooklyn
Labeling the NRA as merely an amoral business lobby driven by profit doesn't cut it anymore. They've sunk to new lows with, when it suits them, trotting out women to testify that every mom needs a high-powered weapon to protect their sleeping babies, and then in the next breath, turning against women when women's interests conflict with those of gun nuts. How does the NRA justify giving more rights to a raging ex-husband than to a raging home invader? Ah, there's the rub.- Anne Russell
- Wilmington NC
My father was manic-depressive and for 2 decades he periodically attacked my mother when in manias. She finally got an order for him to leave the home, and he choked her to death 5 minutes before it went into effect. This is typical of domestic abusers. So far as I'm concerned, when anyone, husband or stranger or other, threatens to kill me and/or my children, that person has announced a present mortal danger to me, and I will eliminate this person in order to protect myself and my children. A restraining order does nothing more than further enrage the abuser. When the law doesn't protect us, we have a moral duty to protect ourselves.- Philpy
- Los Angeles
No one should lose the right to keep and bear arms based solely on an accusation.
If more women owned guns and knew how to use them, there'd be less domestic violence.
That so many are so comfortable giving up rights and freedoms in exchange for the promise or illusion of government protection and provision is unfortunate.- Survivor
- Eugene, OR
I need to read the article again, but I didn't see anything specific that says the background check system is somehow tied to the system that shows protective orders or surrender orders. If that piece isn't in place, how effective is the order to surrender the guns really? Let's say the person does surrender their guns, what's to stop them from just going down and buying another one?- JMC
- North Carolina
During the seven years I worked as an advocate for crime victims in NC and FL, I had three cases that ended in murder: two in which the woman was killed by her ex-partner, and one in which the wife killed her husband. All three were gun-related. (I also had cases in which the weapons were cars, crowbars, baseball bats, knives, and dogs, but no one died in those cases). In the case of the wife who shot her husband, she did so with a weapon that he had previously used to terrorize her and their children: in fact, he kept it specifically for that purpose. The grand jury declined to indict her; the chief of detectives testified in her behalf. One of the two women who were shot in the other cases was killed in a public parking lot in front of her 3-year-old child; the other was on the phone with the police and waiting for them to arrive ... belatedly.
Anyone who would stand on an absolute principle in favor of gun owners has never dealt in person with the reality of violence against the innocent. The truth is, we prohibit people from carrying weapons in many situations where they have not YET committed a crime or even accused of one: on airplanes, in banks, in courthouses, and so on. If I show up at my Congressman's office with a gun, it will be taken away even tho I've never threatened to use it on him. But we hesitate to offend the "rights" of men who have already threatened gun violence?- Quigley Peterson
- Taos, NM
This article underscores the manner in which the NRA has gone completely off the rails. I have worked as an Emergency Physician for 29 years. What scares me more than anything I do is to send home a battered or threatened woman, when the husband or Ex is out in the community with a firearm, angry and drunk.
A history of abuse is a HUGE risk factor. These types of men are dangerous. The anger that accompanies abuse is, in reality, a type of mental illness, even if not in the DSM.
- CS
- MN
We expect product-advocacy from industries and industry associations. If you're Facebook, we should all spend more time online. If you're Apple, we should all buy more gadgets. If you're Coca-Cola, we should all drink more soda. We expect advertising, and we expect the tunnel vision that comes with trying to boost sales.
The NRA is an odd group. I'm sure it receives abundant donations from gun manufacturers, but if it were merely a gun industry association, it would be a far less potent force.
Recall Heston's famous line about his "cold dead hands". The fanatic core of the NRA places unrestricted gun ownership and use as its highest value. Keep that in mind: Guns are more valuable that life itself.
Given that, the fanatic core of the NRA has one solution for all problems: more guns.
If an ex-husband, against whom a restraining order must be issued, owns a gun, the only sensible solution in the NRA worldview is for the woman to buy a gun, carry it at all times, and shoot first if she feels threatened.
The U.S. is a country wedded to a founding mythology about the heroism of killing for "freedom" and "rights". (We have even failed to fully repudiate the Southern perspective in the Civil War, as though being willing to kill to defend the "right" to own slaves were a righteous cause).
The important thing to remember when trying to understand the issues raised in this article is that, for a sizable portion of Americans, guns are more important than human lives.- Antonio
- Santo Domingo
If you have followed the series of articles the NYT has recently devoted to "gun violence", and if you have read them with an open mind, it will be clear to you that the main subject of most of them is guns, not violence. The same can be said of the majority of comments that are in favor of these articles.
To put it bluntly: if Mr. Holten had used a knife to threaten his wife, he would not have figured in this article.
The catch is that Americans have had since the Bill of Rights became part of the fundamental law of the Nation the right to keep and bear arms, and that the Supreme Court, in DC v Heller, has ruled as follows:
"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what it is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct".
I am firmly convinced that gun owners are as opposed to criminal violence as any other citizen, but that they are not inclined to let themselves be led by special pleading into giving up their constitutional right to keep and bear arms, nor to let it be turned into a de facto government granted privilege. It is obvious, furthermore, that the US Congress and the Supreme Court are on their side.
- James Atkinson
- OKC
I regard the NRA as a domestic terrorist organization. Considering what it has morphed into over the last couple decades, what other conclusion is possible? Living in New Jersey as a 6th grader, I remember being introduced to competitive target shooting by the Police Athletic League and NRA. In 7th grade living in rural Idaho, I participated in a target shooting activity during regular class hours in the school gymnasium. In 9th grade, I was a JROTC student qualified as Expert easily because of the training I received in my youth. I am fifty years old and have owned firearms since my grandpa bought me my first 22 caliber rifle at the age of 14. The NRA has done more to damage the cause of outdoor sports involving firearms than anyone. When one thinks of the NRA, they think of extremists, freaks, and conspiracy theorists with absolutely no regard for the rights of others. I cannot imagine why anyone interested in preserving and promoting shooting sports and the conservation of land, water and wildlife would have anything to do with the NRA.- Zoomie
- Omaha, NE
Sorry, but this is a silly argument. It is the old "no one obeys the law, so don't bother passing a law" argument.
Under the same logic you're using, we shouldn't bother passing laws against robbery or murder, because people will still commit robbery and murder, no matter what the law says.
The point here isn't that laws prevent illegal acts, but that laws define illegal acts, which can then be prosecuted. In this specific case, by removing firearms from spouses named in TROs, you remove the temptation of immediate violence (creating a period to let off steam). You also make crystal clear that the spouse under the TRO is now not allowed to have a firearm, which allows law enforcement in some cases to arrest the spouse before he/she commits a violent act.- RobertS
- Queens, New York
I had over 20 years in law enforcement. I do believe that in instances of orders of protection that the guns should removed. And when the issue is settled in court the judge can reinstate the gun holders weapons if it is safe. It is good for the family all around. And might prevent someone doing something they will truly regret for the rest of their lives.
There will be instances where individuals who need a weapon for employment will be affected. Police officers, armed guards and other individuals who have to carry a firearm. But unfortunately they too should have to give it up until the problem is either settled in court or through therapy.
It is sad we have come to this, I believe in the second amendment to the extent that if you want to hunt you should be able. You want to target shoot you should be able, home protection sure. But only individuals who are responsible and psychologically stable should be about to possess a firearm. And as for assault weapons, ban them. Ban any large capacity magizines to everyone except law enforment. As a cop I never wanted the bad guys to have more firepower than I was carrying. And with the proliferation of these types of weapons we are all unsafe. Yeah I know someone will say the bad guys have them anyway, but where do they get them? By stealing from those who have them and being able to purchase them in localities that are lax or don't have good background checks in place. A federal standard is needed.- TREX2561
- St. Paul Minnesota
Even though I own guns, have been a hunter for my whole life, and have a carry permit I left the NRA because of their radical thinking about Second Amendment rights. If that radicalism is required for me to keep my guns I will turn them in now and suffer any consequences that may result.- smlynch
- NJ
I've been a victim of the unfairness of divorce and child custody laws/courts. Still, when it involves guns, I'd say you should err on the side of caution. You have to balance the right to life of the woman (in most of these cases) with the right of the man to possess a firearm. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to temporarily take the man's guns away if the woman says he has threatened her. Most women are not going to go to the trouble of filing a restraining order and claiming that she is afraid for her life if there is no basis to it. So, take the guns away temporarily, have a quick hearing to determine whether the man poses a threat, and if not, give him his guns back. Taking a man's guns away temporarily is a much smaller violation of his "right" to bear arms than the potential permanent ending of the woman's rights via her death.- Mrs. Butler
- Austin, TX
The right to bear arms is in no way absolute; in fact, it was only in 2008 and 2010 that the court officially established said right. And in his '08 opinion, the ultra conservative Scalia was clear: "The right to bear arms is not unlimited and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations."
That all being said, what about these womens' right to life, liberty and the property? Your right to having A shouldn't impede my right to having B, should it?- Irene
- New York
...The article cites 5 murder cases over 10 years, one every 2 years on average, hardly an everyday occurrence...
This is hardly the reality of the millions of women and men threatened with violence and it is an everyday occurrence, see below.
•1,006,970 women and 370,990 men are stalked annually in the United States.
•1 in 12 women and 1 in 45 men will be stalked in their lifetime.
•76% of femicide victims had been stalked by the person who killed them.
•67% had been physically abused by their intimate partner.
•89% of femicide victims who had been physically abused had also been stalked in the 12 months before the murder.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics...
Every year, 1,510,455 women and 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate. This is according to a Nov. 2000 Department of Justice report on the National Violence Against Women Survey. What does that mean? Every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered. Every 20.9 seconds, somewhere in America a woman is battered.- Zoomie
- Omaha, NE
If the TOP were a permanent document, you'd be right. But they are invariably temporary (that is what the "T" in TOP means).
Temporarily surrendering your right to have a firearm in your possession is a very minor inconvenience if it saves lives. Many people are required to surrender far more when accused or subject to court orders (talk to people who literally spend months, sometimes over a year, accused of a crime and unable to make bail, who are later released with the charge(s) dropped). Giving up ownership of a firearm for a brief period to reduce the chance of a needless death is hardly a major loss of rights or liberties.- denise.ereka
- Houston, Texas
Responding as an attorney who prosecuted these orders, I find your arguments spurious and based on a perceived chance of abuse.
Take the free service that Harris County, Texas provides to victims of domestic violence. This includes, by the way, men and women, parents and children.
The standard length of an order in Texas is 2 years. You may have noticed that Texas is a very pro-gun state. Despite that, less than half of the respondents showed up for their court date. Of those that showed up, most agreed to the order. Why? Because we had evidence of their abuse and threats. Texts, emails, recorded phone calls and pictures were usually available for most cases.
And, if I ever caught an applicant lying, I dismissed their case. Because the purpose of an order is not a leg up in a divorce, it is to prevent murder.
I suggest you take a day and go listen to some protective court hearings. Your eyes will be opened. You will also find women are not the only applicants. My most heart breaking cases were where I had to get a protective order for an elderly parent against an abusive child.
- Muffy
- Santa Barbara, CA
Why get a restraining order anyway? They seem to be meaningless documents. I was told "We can't do anything based on words. Do you have proof he's caused you physical harm?" Gee, I wasn't clear-headed when my ex threw me against a wall. I guess I wasn't thinking while he was lifting me up by my neck, strangling me and threatening to "blow my brains out." I hoped to spare our son and his pre-school age friends the trauma of watching police drag daddy away while they sang happy birthday elsewhere in the house. Then again, hubby could have shot me right there and the trauma would've been worse for everyone. I took my chances. My bad decision? Maybe. Both the county sheriff's office and local police said I needed "evidence of a physical attack." Even after I told them several illegal weapons were hidden throughout the house. It's been a decade now. When I told a friend about my the threats, I was also asked "Wow, what did you do?" -- as if I must've provoked my ex somehow causing, him to be so angry. The threat is gone, but the horror isn't. When I read stories like these, my heart aches. Proving how little has changed: Yesterday's shameful reporting by CNN's Candy Crowley and another woman reporting from "the scene", as they lamented the guilty convictions of two rapists -- never once mentioning the horrors endured by the victim. The implications in several accounts were that the young girl was drinking and in some way "deserved it".
We are "only" women, after all.- FearlessLdr
- Paradise Valley, AZ
Some nitwit breaks the law. We build prisons for those who break the law. I decry the idea this woman's rights were violated. However, blaming a firearm for her ex-husband's illegal behavior is like blaming the grill for burning your steak.
Why should someone breaking the law be a call to restrict my constitutional rights? Yes, firearms ownership is a constitutional right. The constitution is there to restrict the power of government, not the rights of the people.
- SEM
- Ohio
How does that work, exactly? She's coming home with the groceries, holding their toddler's hand. He suddenly appears and points a gun at her. Does she just politely ask him to wait a minute? "Here, honey, you hold the groceries and the baby while I get my gun?"
If the men in these scenarios were open to a fair fight, they wouldn't have restraining orders against them.- eva lockhart
- Minneapolis, MN
Here in Minneapolis, this calendar year, (only three months old), there have already been eight women who have died within a situation of domestic violence at the hands of a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend or ex-boyfriend. Maybe we need to switch things around: guns could still be legal, but only in the hands of women, who appear to really need them. Men who want to hunt, well try bow-hunting or borrow your wife's gun. When so many victims are women and children, and almost all the proponents of gun-ownership are male, it isn't hard to see that we live in a society with a giant power differential. Anyone who doesn't find this disturbing needs to ask themselves: what if it were my child, my sister, my mother, my daughter? Would you feel differently then?- Seamus Alehaus
- Rochester NY
Thank you for a lawyer's perspective on this. I am a liberal gun owner who quit the Democratic Party over NY's gun law. I am not an NRA member but am glad they are there in opposition to those who think Cuomo's law is "sensible" and others who think we should get rid of all guns and the Second Amendment. No moral person wants a man or woman to fear for their life in a divorce or any time. If a spouse or ex-spouse threatens violence that person should not have a gun. At the same time, as you and other posters report, orders of protection are often sought for spite and legal advantage not fact. A police officer told me this is common and that he once was part of a team that confiscated a valuable collection of shotguns from a man's mother's house after his wife received an order of protection against him. They were worth thousands of dollars but were thrown on top of each other into a police van banging and denting against each other. He said he hated doing it but that was how guns were treated when taken. The man's legal property was damaged and there was nothing he could do about it. I don't know what the answer is. Certainly we do not want spouses and families threatened but there should be some proof before people's rights and property are taken. There should be legal penalties for making false claims. Spouses need to be protected but protective orders should not be issued without justification. When property is taken it should not be damaged.- Linda Fitzjarrell
- St. Croix Falls WI
Of course it isn't okay. It would be nice if ALL people, men and women, would give some thought to the objectification of women, and its' affect on human relationships. No person is an object to be possessed. There are way too many insecure men who view their mate as something they own. This evolves into "if I can't have her no one can". Recently, in my home town, a man slit the throats of his three daughters with the intention of hurting his wife. It wasn't that long ago that women and children were considered legal property of the husband.- Jon W.
- New York, NY
To address the idiotic (but unfortunately, common) argument that "Just because a gun law isn't 100% effective isn't reason to not have it. We don't not have alws against murder or rape because of that." The key difference: Laws against murder and rape, even if not perfectly effective, do not have any negative consequences. Laws restricting guns do, as they take rights away from law abiding people.- Scared Man
- Bellevue, WA
The cruel problem here is that one makes the *assumption* that the women filing these protection orders are doing so for genuine protection. That might actually happen in the rarest of cases, but most (and I am regrettably in the situation as many other men in Western Washington) of these orders have *nothing* to do with protection at all, but rather gaining the upper-hand in divorces to extract more money or deny good fathers time with their children. As such, *I* am the victim of a system that lets women lie under oath and say "I'm scared of him" in order to extort more money in a divorce. The RULES OF EVIDENCE are NOT followed for DVPO hearings, so you are NOT allowed to present evidence, testimony, witnesses -- sidestepping the constitution because *technically* you are NOT being "tried" even though significant penalties are attached (losing access to your children, assets/money). For a violent person, the DVPO does nothing anyway -- there's nothing that stops someone from using a gun illegally and ignoring the order.
If anyone wants the REAL story here, search out "Washington Domestic Violence Commission", or WADVpress.org, or read Nina Shapiro's unbiased articles "Ripped Apart" or "Mental Health Counselor Douglas Bartholomew Stripped of Domestic Violence Cases" in the Seattle Weekly. These are TRUE and ACCURATE accounts without the SPIN normally attached to the hysteria attached to DV.- Matt
- RI
All laws primarily affect those who obey them. This does not mean there should not be laws!
- Nuschler
- Cambridge
As a fellow ER physician...I ask: "Why do you send a traumatized, injured woman home knowing that the husband is out there armed, angry, and drunk?"
Call the domestic violence centers...get her taken safely to a secure location. Work in your community for better gun laws, Dr. Peterson. Your commitment to your patients goes beyond the walls of the emergency department.
"Do no harm." Don't send her back into harm's way!- Rachel
- NYC
The sad statistical fact is that if you, as a woman, own a weapon, it is more likely that you will be shot in a domestic violence incident than if you don't own one. This is because most of the people who will attack you are not going to be strangers. They are people like boyfriends, who own the keys to your home and/or know where you keep your gun or where you put your purse when you walk in a house.
You feel that your gun will make you safer. But the reality is that it is at least two times more likely that you'll end up shot, should you get emotionally involved with an abuser, when you own a gun.- VPM
- Houston Tx
Yes, and, as further evidence that the NRA cares NOTHING about women... A few years ago I picked up the phone to an unidentified caller, which I do not normally do. A woman's voice asked to speak to the man of the house. That irritated me just enough to ask politely who was calling for "the man of the house". We got into a short but somewhat tense exchange, but I remained polite because my curiosity was piqued, and she became a bit flustered. After the second or third time that I questioned about who was calling she admitted that she was calling to do a phone survey on behalf of the NRA. It was only at that point that I told her that there was no man of the house. When I asked her, "So you're telling me that the NRA wants to solicit opinions, but they have no interest in what the WOMAN of the house thinks?" she hesitated and then said basically yes, that was the case, that she was instructed to poll ONLY men. I swear that I am not inventing this just because it makes a good story in this context.- Stacey
- Wyoming
In my state, Wyoming, you get a court order that doesn't take away weapons right then, but a hearing is set within 24hrs. Each side presents evidence and is heard.
I had to get a Protection Order when I left my husband. He owned guns and was asked to surrender them because of the violent incidents that happened in the past. Not all abused woman have the documentation I did. I had been planning my escape for months and was well prepared.
I say escape because that was what it was. Most people have no idea what it's like to live with the knowledge that you could say the wrong thing or do the wrong thing and not know if you were going to be yelled at, punched or a gun waved in your face.
Leaving was the hardest thing I ever did, but it was the best for me and my kids. I do everyday worry if this is going to be the day he decides to snap and kill me and I do worry everyday that he's going to find a way to get a gun even if his rights at this point are limited.- Warren
- CT
- Years ago in college my roommate told my a story of a girl on his street running out into an oncoming car of a neighbor and getting killed. It was not the driver's fault and he stopped. The father of the girl ran out, and not in his right mind, went ballistic against the driver of the car, who remained locked in the car until the police came. The police dragged him away and before they left the neighborhood, they took the father's guns away. Totally illegal probably, but it probably averted another tragedy. At the very least, it was good common sense.
- Susan
- Abuja, Nigeria
- Jay
- PA
Sometimes people should have their guns taken away. And while the legal threshold for getting a protection order may be low, the accused always has the right to appeal to the judge to keep his or her guns.It's distressing to see that so many of the comments on this well-reported story take the form of knee-jerk responses that could just as well go with any other story on gun violence, gun control efforts and the 2nd amendment. Some of us have clearly just stopped listening -- and thinking -- about the issue, and just use every story as an excuse to jump on our hobby horses and gallop into the raging sunset.
It's also distressing to read so many that make the argument that women -- the sneaky vixens -- are more often lying than telling the truth when they seek orders of protection. Really? I did a bit of research on this, and cannot find any substantiation for it, though some men's groups push this argument, and people apparently find it very easy to believe.
I'm not saying women don't ever tell lies, just that there's no evidence they lie more readily than men do, and that there's no data to support the view that a significant percentage of women who seek orders of protection do so frivolously.
Though I don't own a gun and I don't shoot, I am making an honest effort to understand the gun-rights point of view, one that is held by several people I love and respect. Is anyone on the gun-rights side making a similar effort in the opposite direction? Perhaps in the spirit of healing after Newtown? First of all I agree that anyone who threatens harm with weapon should have those weapons taken away if not jailed outright when there is proof. There is however another problem. Protection from abuse orders are issued even when there is no proof that a threat of violence has been made. Too many marital partners have found themselves barred from their homes. separated from their spouse, their children and left literally living in their cars, motels or with other friends or relatives. Those partners expelled from home may no longer have access to food, clothing, shelter and financial resources. In many, many cases the spouse who requested the POA is cheating or just wants out of a bad marriage or worse, wants to seize children or financial assets of the marriage. How many men and women have found themselves totally without assets, or even jailed or sent to psychiatric facilities under the guise of protection for abuse order because of an alleged threat of violence? A larger question though is how many people who have been stripped of all their rights under a POA go out and get a gun to solve their problem? How many have felt helpless and powerless due to a POA and are enraged enough to reach for a gun or knife once the full impact of the POA is felt?
The laws of implementation for a POA, including taking of weapons, barring one from finances, home, shelter and contact with children...those laws need to be reviewed and revised before more violence occurs.
1138 Comments