Legislator calls for study of gun seizures
Laws in domestic violence cases at issue
By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Monitor staff
January 01. 2005 5:06PM
A lawmaker is asking the Legislature to revisit the laws that allow judges and police officers to seize guns in domestic violence cases.
"A lot of these domestic violence charges are brought as a tactic in divorces," said Rep. Howard Dickinson, a Center Conway Republican. "There is an excessive amount of paranoia when it comes to guns, and sometimes the guns have nothing to do whatsoever with the situation."
State laws allow guns to be seized in a couple of ways. A judge has an option of taking guns and ammunition when he or she issues a domestic violence petition. In addition, police officers are obligated by law to take guns when they are called to a domestic violence assault and make an arrest.
Dickinson, who said he advises people to get around the seizure laws by hiding their guns at friends' houses, is asking only that the Legislature study the existing laws, not immediately change them. He's hoping that approach will calm some of the opposition he expects to face.
"I'll get grief and praise," said Dickinson, whose legislation has the support of three senators and another state representative. "I don't know why I should get grief or praise since this study will provide everyone an opportunity to express themselves."
If the Legislature does form a study committee, Henniker Police Chief Timothy Russell said he will be among those testifying. Russell is a member of the state's Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee, which studies how fatal domestic violence cases are handled.
"At the risk of sounding anti-gun, which I am not, the fact is that the vast majority of domestic violence homicides are committed by firearms," Russell said. "And half of all homicides are domestic-violence related. I don't know what people don't understand about that."
Russell did not have the committee's latest reports in his police department office yesterday, and state offices that have recent statistics were closed for the New Year's holiday. Dickinson said he has not researched the matter because that is what he wants the study committee to do.
But Russell said he believes the current laws have worked. In cases of domestic violence petitions in which a police officer has not witnessed or investigated an abuse allegation, a judge does not automatically seize guns, Russell said. A temporary order initially seizes the guns for up to 30 days, but after that, the gun owner has a chance to argue his or her right to keep the firearms before a judge issues a final order.
If that law has been abused, as Dickinson suggests, Russell believes it's better to err on the side of caution. Dickinson does not.
"If we are going to err on the side of caution, we should all be locked in our houses and never get in a car," he said. "More people are killed by cars in this country."
Among Dickinson's concerns is the care given - or denied - the guns themselves while they are stored at police stations.
"In a lot of cases, these guns are incredibly valuable," he said. "And they are picked up like a bunch of kindling wood and thrown in the back of a car."
He said he visits the sheriff's office in Carroll County to ensure the seized guns there are properly oiled and maintained.
State Sen. Robert Boyce, an Alton Republican, is co-sponsoring Dickinson's legislation. Boyce said his interest is in divorce cases when one party accuses the other of domestic violence in retaliation for other grievances. "If there is an indication where there has been a violent situation, I think it's entirely appropriate to take the guns,"Boyce said. "But in some cases, it seems like getting a restraining order is a standard tactic."
The other co-sponsors are Rep. Elbert Bicknell, a Deerfield Republican, Sen. Joseph Kenney, a Union Republican, and Sen. Robert Letorneau, a Derry Republican.
Location: Occupied Territories of New York (Buffalo)
Posts: 2,898
man this happens all the time here, all the woman has to do is leave the house crying and slap her self in the face a few times till her check turns red and then walk into the police station, they don't care that no one witnessed it they just issue a restaining order and arest the guy and take all his guns. its so common place around here its pathetic. the first thing the atturney ask around here in a divorce case is "does he have guns in the house?" then it all starts. i have over thiry guns in the storage room at the shop. that are being hidden for just this reason. this law has been abused to the hilt. why the heck are they saying it may have been abused. open your eyes if we where as domesticly violent as a society in direct relation to the ammount of gun siesed under this law around here. there would be about 20 murders a week. BTW we have had 6 in this county over the last two years. and three missing persons cases. one of witch they have one of our local cops in the clink holding him as a person of interest.
__________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"
-Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
"If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective."
- Ted Nugent
"Self-defense is Nature's eldest law."
-John Dryden
The problem is there aren't to many locals around and are being outnumbered by M!!!!!!!s CT. RI. and NY. This is the first time that N.H. went to the Dems. Good thing we don't have to many votes or we might have the worst of the back seat Kennedys.They move here but bring there thinking with them. They may get away with it in a few of the boarder towns,sea coast and the lakes area but it will not fly anywhere else.
They move here but bring there thinking with them.
Hey, sometimes the darn Yankees bring their thinking here to NC, too! And I say that as a transplanted Yankee. I grew up in NH and moved to NC in the 80's.
Actually this can have a bad effect for everyone because if the other party gets a restraining order you auitomatically loose your guns until a hearing. I remember one of our deputies had his soon to be ex wife at the time turn in a false claim -- here is a complicated one the firearms were to be taken away but if you took the firearms you were disarming an officer on the street. I am for taking the firearm if there is a felony conviction but then and only then
I am for taking the firearm if there is a felony conviction but then and only then
Even then, I am torn on that one. Not all felonies are violent in nature. I hate the idea that a felon loses the right to have a gun and vote for life. Some people do stupid things and pay the price, but for life? If a felony was committed with a weapon, I can understand the confiscation and ban a whole lot more. I just have a hard time with taking away someone's right to self defense with appropriate force with all felonies.
Troy there are pluses and minuses to each idea -- as a former LEO I side with the tighter line -- a felony is a major crime. Now felons have a right to request a pardon after they have served their time and get them expunged - Prime example G. Gordon Liddy -- served felony time for contempt of congress he can ask Bush for a pardon and probably be granted one but he agree's he was convicted of a felony and he has served his time but he did break the law and he is responsible for his loss of rights.
Shaun - G. Gordon Liddy did nothing to indicate that he would be a violent person if he was able to have firearms after the conviction, and serving his time. It is extremely easy to be in contempt of congress, sometimes you just have to sit silent, and that should not take away your rights to have firearms.
I always had understood that the "Justice System" was Just, however it is not! The judge says, pay your debt to society by serving your time. NO! That is not how it works, you are branded for the rest of your life. Any time you apply for a job, you have to face the conviction, as most applications ask, have you ever been arrested (not including traffic tickets), and if you are truthful, most of the time you will not get the job, if you lie and it is found out, then you lose your job!
Anyone who gets convicted of anything (other than most traffic tickets) in a Court of Law in this country, will never again have the freedoms the constitution supposedly grants to each and every citizen. When the country was founded, felons were executed, anyone else who was convicted served their time and all was forgotten. The definition of felon has been continually changed through the years, and the Justice System has become something not intended by the "Founding Fathers". The freedoms envisioned by the Founding Fathers was far different than the "Police State" we live in today.
I call it a Police State because of the Liberal push to have more and more Police on the job to make them feel safe, has put more and more Police on the job, and then laws are created by the legislatures and county supervisors and city councils to create more and more work for the more and more police. In one district locally, I never fail to see 10 to 15 Police cars within 5 minutes every time I drive through there and it has always been an extremely LOW crime area, and the people who live there are more on the middle income side. The distance I drive through the district is about 1 1/2 miles, and I have seen 25 and more Police cars at times. The speed limits are 25 miles per hour, and not only are all of the Police vehicles equipped with radar and lasers, there are at least 2 to 5 photo radar units posted around the district.
Gyrene in Liddy's case he still retains then so it isn't a problem to him -- he gets around the rulse because Mrs. Liddy is the so called "Owner" of the firearms
As to the original punishment of the felonies I wish we could go back to the orginal for everything including; murder, sex crimes, robbery, home invasion (burglary) and any crime against a child. Then all we might have to deal with is the misdemeanors.
i'm not a cop but i have heard about rap sheets.and most if not all of the convicted felons have them(that means they are repeat offenders) now there are a few felons that just do one crime and thats it but they are few .
i feel that if you are (convicted) of a violent or a felony crime and you go to jail then yes you should loose your right to own a gun.after all it's them criminals doin crimes with guns that are makin it us have to fight harder to keep our guns and you want to give them thier guns right back to them just as soon as they get out of jail!!!! come on guy!!! think about it. i can understand wanting to give a guy his guns back that didn't do a violent crime but the way it sounds is everyone that gets released from prison should beable to own a gun again and we know how they like to release killers and rapist early don't we??
i feel that if you are (convicted) of a violent or a felony crime and you go to jail then yes you should loose your right to own a gun.after all it's them criminals doin crimes with guns that are makin it us have to fight harder to keep our guns and you want to give them thier guns right back to them just as soon as they get out of jail!!!! come on guy!!! think about it. i can understand wanting to give a guy his guns back that didn't do a violent crime but the way it sounds is everyone that gets released from prison should beable to own a gun again and we know how they like to release killers and rapist early don't we??
Tommy, try REREADING. That is NOT what was written. That may be the way you READ it, but it is not what I wrote.
i wasn't talkin about any one certain person but the way it was sounding . would you want a convicted killer to get released from prison early and then move next door to your house or my house and be able to go out and buy the same guns that you and i can own. or some guy with a temper problem to beable to get out on good behavier and then end up next dooronly to just go off on the next guy or your kids or my kids. no i wasn't talkin about anyone in paticular but it's just the way the thread was started to sound that's what i meant. sorry if anyone took it to offense :uzi:
Tommy you make some good points -- many criminal know the easiest way to get out on good behavior is to join a religious group in jail and they claim how it has changed them and they get out again and repeat. I spent time talking with prisoneers in our jail and this was something they told me they would do to try and get a reduction in sentence.
i wasn't talkin about any one certain person but the way it was sounding . would you want a convicted killer to get released from prison early and then move next door to your house or my house and be able to go out and buy the same guns that you and i can own. or some guy with a temper problem to beable to get out on good behavier and then end up next dooronly to just go off on the next guy or your kids or my kids. no i wasn't talkin about anyone in paticular but it's just the way the thread was started to sound that's what i meant. sorry if anyone took it to offense :uzi:
I have NO problem with violent offenders getting their rights suspended. I pretty much made that clear. Not all felonies are violent. Some are credit card fraud, embezzlement, and juvenile indiscretions (I had my share of them and would be in prison had I been caught). I have a hard time taking away one's right to defend themselves.
I know full well about how some criminals use religious activities and programs for their benefit. I was a prison preacher for several years and ran a private "half way house" for a while. Been there, done that.
We were briefed on the Lautenburg law at the base. We were advised that losing our guns also meant not being able to carry one on duty, hampering ones career. Same goes for LEO as prior mentioned.
:uzi:
