Maryland: Gov. wants law to prohibit gun ownership if under restraining order

[ericire12]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102303329.html

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley said yesterday that he probably will sponsor legislation requiring the surrender of all firearms by anyone subject to a final protective order limiting contact with an abused spouse or partner.

Similar bills have been successfully resisted by gun-rights activists, but advocates for domestic violence victims expressed hope that O'Malley's involvement could lead to passage in the upcoming legislative session, which starts in January.

The governor said he is interested in resurrecting two bills that failed by lopsided votes in a House committee during the previous legislative session.

One bill would require judges to include the firearms prohibition when issuing a final protective order. That restriction is now at the judge's discretion.

The other would tighten the state protective order law to include all firearms. Currently, handguns are subject to protective orders, for example, but rifles are not.

Both bills were supported by the Maryland State Police last session but not included in a package of "administration bills" put forward by the governor. Such administration bills typically are given heightened consideration by lawmakers.

The two bills were defeated last session by the House Judiciary Committee, 17 to 2 and 17 to 3.

[tombogan03884]

That's like making all men get their penis's cut off to prevent rape.
Just had a 2nd person die in NH from a home invasion in one of our largest cities. The weapon ? Baseball bats.
Rochester NY did a study on violent crime, they wanted to address the "Tidal wave of gun violence" come to find out 85% of violent attacks were committed with, fists, feet, clubs and knives.
The Democrats (Obama )  want to restore voting rights to felons, voting is not a Constitutionally guaranteed Civil right ,
gun ownership is but these same dems want to deprive people of their civil rights because they MIGHT commit a crime ?
Typical dem hypocrasy, like abortion vs. capital punishment, Kill the babies but spare the convicted murderers.
How stupid can they be and still remember to breathe ?

[TAB]

lots of states have some type of law reguarding restraining orders and guns... some states even go so far as to making you turn them in.

[jnevis]

Being that I live in MD and just passed a couple of a co-worker's pistols to the Sherif's Dept recently I'll chime in.  The guy I work with is going through a REALLY crappy divorce.  Before the Ex dropped the bomb on him he had gone out and purchased a S&W Sigma (don't hold it against him) and a Springfield 1911 to plink and shoot in the local IDPA matches.  They seperate and he takes his pistols and moves in with another friend.  One day he stops by the house to drop off some things for the kids and finds a casing from a recent range session in the back of his Jeep and tosses it to the youngest.  She immediately files for a restraining order using the casing as a threat to her safety as he was a former SEAL support guy.  They go to court and he produces a IDPA membership card and a NRA Basic Pistol course completion certificate and the judge says "sorry, the guns must not be in your posession per current law."  They write it in the order that I willl hold them and he will only shoot at supervised matches.  Fast forward a year and now she files for an extension based on a neighbor that "MIGHT" have seen his car in the neighborhood one evening.  He looses the guns to SO until Jan.  If the order drops he can get them back.  The law is already basically in place but since OMalley wants to look good for Baltimore voters and Nobama he adds this to a package to pass through the local legislature jusy prior to the election.  It won't really change crap since most judges make you turn them in anyway.

[TAB]

Sadly that has been repeated over and over across the country.   Don't get me wrong, some people that have restraining orders on them need to have thier guns removed, but I can get a restraining order on just about anyone, for just about anything.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

It's still BS, just because a lot of states do it (Including NH) depriving a citizen of a civil right because they MIGHT commit a crime violates the constitution. They did stuff like that in the USSR and Nazi Germany. Oh, by the way, like all the other gun laws, it doesn't work.

[TAB]

not every one that gets a restraining order got one becuase they are worried about the party becoming violent.  many get them after they have become violent.  its a double edged sword.  On the one hand you want people like battered wifes getting them with little to know work.  On the other you want to keep a vindictive bitch from getting one. 

[Rastus]

We are enjoying the fruits of our enlightened society.  We put laws in place, like they were going to make a difference when it mattered and provide absolute protection, without regard to the mass who would be innocent.  When I was a child, a man who beat his wife up was "warned" by the community.  I don't know of a single "warning" that went unheeded....but then there was this "Great Society" which was thrust upon us.  Since the "Great Society" we enjoy an increase in murder, rape, robbery, divorce, false witness from wives........

Laws are written to get politicians elected....for some reason the laws on the books are not good enough now when they were back when...so we need a new specific law and everyone gobbles up the Bovine Scatology pressed upon them thinking the politician is a great guy who thinks like they do.   For instance, what is wrong with a law that sentences the murder of a police officer to death...nothing...most people are for it...so unfortunately some slug got off on a technicality who was obviously guilty and the public is outraged, then out of the blue by golly some politician says we need to write a law saying to put cop murders to death....HOORAY!!!...problem is 1) there was (at least in most states) a law that allows capital punishment for murder 2) some judge still has latitude to get around the sentence and 3) let's pass a tax to help those guys out...never quite seems to make it to them in more than a COLA adjustment.   Bottom line here....nothing changed but some slime ball politician got reelected on the basis he was tough on crime.......and now has a little more bread to spread to his cronies.

We the People fall for it most every time when, perhaps, we should be looking more closely at the judiciary we elect and should demand they make the hard decisions they are elected for.  Like interpreting the Constitution and laws for what they are without updating them to the current social morays, that is to say treating them like living documents that change with the times.  If laws need to change with the times that is the purview of the Executive and Legislative Branches of government.  But then, old Obamanation and his fascist cronies are going to help us....probably help us right out of that Constitution for We the People. 

[MikeBjerum]

It is one thing to lose Rights once you are convicted of crimes.  However, a lot of restraining orders are issued just like search warrants - without enough proof of guilt.  This type of thing leaves the door wide open for abuse of power by gun grabbing zealots!  Someday we will ask what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty and due process?

[tombogan03884]

It is one thing to lose Rights once you are convicted of crimes.  However, a lot of restraining orders are issued just like search warrants - without enough proof of guilt.  This type of thing leaves the door wide open for abuse of power by gun grabbing zealots!  Someday we will ask what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty and due process?

I ask that NOW.