Iowa Senate approves domestic violence gun bill
by O. Kay Henderson on March 11, 2010
The Iowa Senate has sent the governor a bill that would take guns away from those convicted of domestic abuse and forbid those who’re the subject of a “no-contact” order from owning or selling guns and ammunition. Senator Keith Kreiman, a Democrat from Bloomfield, says the bill is intended to reduce fear. “It is intended to reduce the number of instances of domestic abuse,” Kreiman says.
The bill passed on a 36 to 12 vote. Critics like Senator David Hartsuch, a Republican from Bettendorf, say this may mean people who are wrongly accused of domestic violence — and who are the subject of a “no-contact” order but haven’t been convicted of a crime — will lose their gun rights.
“I think there is ample evidence to suggest that this bill does not meet any legitimate social objective that would warrant the removal of Second Amendment rights,” Hartsuch says. And Hartsuch points to a case in a neighboring state as evidence this new Iowa law might not stand up to a legal challenge.
“The district court in Wisconsin struck down a very similiar law in September ‘09 because tehre was an individual…who had a misdemeanor offense of dometic violence who…hunted deer…and when his probation officer found out…went out, searched (the man’s home), found the gun and he was put in jail,” Hartsuch says. Kreiman, who is a lawyer, disagreed.
“As a supporter of the Second Amendment I understand that there is a fear that this bill will affect Second Amendment rights,” Kreiman says. “The short and direct answer is that this bill affects no person who has not been found by a judge or jury to have committed domestic abuse or assault.” Kreiman says domestic abuse is extremely dangerous not only to families, but to law enforcement and sometimes, to innocent bystanders.
“As much as we prize our constitutional rights, sometimes those rights are limited or forfeited due to criminal conduct or conduct that has been found by a court to be extremely dangers or harmful to others,” Kreiman says. The bill passed the House last night on a 73 to 25 vote. Governor Culver is expected to sign it into law.
“As a supporter of the Second Amendment I understand that there is a fear that this bill will affect Second Amendment rights,” Kreiman says. “The short and direct answer is that this bill affects no person who has not been found by a judge or jury to have committed domestic abuse or assault.” Kreiman says domestic abuse is extremely dangerous not only to families, but to law enforcement and sometimes, to innocent bystanders.
That part in bold is basically a lie. That, or he doesn’t understand what he is talking about. A No Contact (restraining) Order is issued at the time a person is arrested, not convicted. And, it is not to hard for a person to find themselves on the wrong side of a No Contact Order. They aren’t just issued for domestic relationships.
I hate it when politicians say “As a supporter of the Second Amendment” while working against it.
Mark my words, some day they’ll extend these prohibitions to those who’ve been convicted of any public offense at all - traffic violations included. After all you’re a public danger… Given enough time nobody will qualify to own firearms and the 2nd Amendment will have essentially been gutted for all practical purposes.
A similar law was proposed and defeated this session in Washington. I guess Iowa has less active gun rights groups/citizens or a more liberal or stupid legislature.
In Iowa there are both civil and criminal no contact orders. The criminal ones are issued for cases of domestic abuse, harassment and certain other crimes. In these cases the no contact order is automatically issued. The civil ones are issued in cases of divorce proceedings, or any other cases where a person goes down on their own and pays the filing fee.
All criminal ones already prohibit the possession and access to firearms. I am not sure if the civil ones automatically do. Although, I do remember seeing a civil no contact order that had that provision written into it.
You know, normally I am somewhat aware of what laws are being discussed. But, this law seemed to fly under the radar.
There was a lot of press about the “Ed Thomas Law” that called for hospitals to notify law enforcement when they were releasing mental patients who had charges pressed against them. And then, all of a suddent this new law is on the Governor’s desk.
I wondering what the catalyst was for this law. Especially since there is Federal law that basically already covers this new law.
In Illinois we call the no contact orders ( Orders of Protection) These can be obtained on an emergency basis through a court by an advocate or directly, usually after a police report alledging domestic abuse ( even if an arrest was not made) Emergency orders can be up to 30 days duration and can restrict gun possession. A hearing with a judge is needed to extend the emergency order to 2 years. If any conviction for domestic abuse occurs, then the State revokes the persons FOID card, which is a firearms ID card issued by the State required for possession of firearms and ammunition in Illinois. Plan on blowing this state as soon as my wife retires. :mad:
As I stated from experience in the now locked other thread by the OP, the TRO situation can already be anyone’s reality here in NJ and the disease is spreading.
Not saying there can never be legitimacy to taking someone’s guns if they are overtly threatening, but there should be ample, sustainable reason to do so. Not just the word of someone out for revenge.
I’ll tell you where they probably were - hiding in political fear that they’ll be labeled by feminazi groups as “misogynists” or accused of trying to protect the right of wifebeaters to kill their wives, or some other such nonsense. Once the media gets ahold of that, it will then inaccurately report the proposed law as being something much more reasonable that what it actually is, and then the NRA will be painted as unreasonable extremists.
The NRA is VERY image and PR conscious. I can almost guarantee that the above is the reason that they don’t get involved, at least not openly, in legislative debates on things like this.
Not sure if it varies by state or not but the answer is no in Pa and De. Put simply you and your lawyer can go before a judge and present evidence, the judge then will decide if it is warranted. So ultimately you can simply be served with a PFA or the like with no way to fight it until a court date… Its kinda scary, however judges do require hard evidence to support your claims before issuing.
We need to start making sure that passing such legislation = career death. All a politician has to do to become a garbage colletor is advance this kind of B.S. it is anti-American and it is time for it to stop. :mad: