SC Senate passes gun ban for domestic violence offenders

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

SC Senate passes gun ban for domestic violence offenders
By JEFFREY COLLINS, Associated Press | February 25, 2015



COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — In a state where gun rights tend to be fiercely guarded, the South Carolina Senate on Wednesday agreed to take firearms away from many people convicted of criminal domestic violence.

The gun ban would still require a judge's approval for the least serious offenses. A provision adding that requirement cleared the way for passage of the bill to strengthen domestic violence penalties across the board. The measure passed 38-3 after nearly two weeks of debate.

It still must pass the House, which is considering a domestic violence bill with a less stringent gun ban. But lawmakers in both chambers appear ready to take some kind of action to curb domestic violence, as South Carolina frequently ranks among the worst in the nation in the number of people killed that way.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/SC-Senate-passes-gun-ban-for-domestic-violence-6101853.php

---

(Short article, no more at link.)

[Cryptoad]

1. Gun Bans at the Local and State Levels

seem not to work,,,,,, Federal will!

[hack89]

7. The last federal gun ban was a failure

so I wouldn't be too sure of that.

[Cryptoad]

9. Federal gun ban still in place and it working pretty good

Go try to buy a shoulder fired missile, and tell me how easy it is...

[hack89]

11. I was referring to a ban that actually banned guns

namely the AWB. Missiles are legally classified as ordnance and are not covered by the 2A. In 1938 America drew a bright line as to what "guns" are.

[Cryptoad]

21. Thats what Im talking about

it has worked well,,,, all guns could be and should be controlled by the same Federal process......

[hack89]

24. That Federal process allows the legal ownership of machine guns and silencers

so I wouldn't call it a ban. It is actually a tax scheme to make certain items hard to acquire - it had to be rewritten after several court cases said it could not be use to prosecute illegal gun ownership. Turns out you can't force people who cannot legally own guns to register their guns due to 5th Amendment issues.

What you are proposing would be a massive and expensive program that would not significantly impact gun violence. Some things to consider:

1. It would not have stopped Sandy Hook - that rifle was legally registered in a state with a strict AWB.

2. It would not impact two thirds of all gun deaths, namely suicides. The demographic most likely to kill themselves with guns (middle aged white men) is the demographic least likely to be impacted by more stringent gun control requirements.

3. There is a vast pool of guns presently unregistered that will never be registered so criminals will always have access to guns.

As it stands right now, Americans have the Constitutional right to own guns in their homes. Any measure to make that harder will have a hard time passing strict judicial scrutiny.

[Cryptoad]

39. BS... no rights granted by our Constituion are absolute,,,

,,, check the 9th amend....I believe I used the words " controlled" not "ban"... that Federal process works as proven by weapons controlled by federal laws, they only have to defined the guns and the conditions of ownership by reasonable people.. the ole NRA argument that it will not stop all illegal guns is BS too. and the cost would be well worth it......

[hack89]

40. ok. nt

[onehandle]

2. Guns are the very penis of domestic gun activists.

I mean domestic violence offenders.

Well... potato, potahtoe.

[img][/img]

[Duckhunter935]

3. The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called "the Lautenberg Amendment"

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.

The definition of 'convicted' can be found in the chapter 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) and has exceptions:

(33) (B)
(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Federal law, also applies to active military members.

[LiberalElite]

4. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) - a good man RIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lautenberg

[Duckhunter935]

5. Yes he was

came back to serve after retirement

[blkmusclmachine]

6. A rare flash of sanity in loony SC?!?!

[flamin lib]

8. Gun Control is a women's issue.

More women are killed by a gun in the U.S. every year than all the casualties in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

[Munificence]

10. I'm

gonna call you out on this as it being BS.

Sure it is a major problem, but you may at least want to re-word your statement.

[Oktober]

13. How are they related?

A population of 300 million versus a group of a few hundred thousand....

[flamin lib]

18. OK, I'll rephrase.

More women are killed with guns in the US than in Canada, Australia, and most of Europe combined.

[Sancho]

12. Since I grew up in SC and still have family there, I'm posting this. See #10...

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Oktober]

14. Down the list...

1) Which other rights should require regular licensing and renewal at the whim of state and local legislators?

2) Which legal and medical standard are you going to use as the benchmark for your health care professionals to bless off on folks? Which conditions are disqualifying?

3) Do I need a different class for both my Springfield 9mm pistol vs my Glock?

4) Why am I responsible for the crimes of other people? What about neighbors? People in the same building?

5) Insurance doesn't cover criminal acts as it stands. What constitutes proof of appropriate storage? A receipt for a $6 cable lock or am I required to invite the police into my home to inspect regularly?

6) Not sure what purpose this serves...

7) Illegal on its face...

8) Why would I have to give up my right to self defense once I leave the boundaries of my home? If your goal is to prevent shootings then what makes you think that a dedicated shooter would follow such a restriction? How does this improve anything as opposed to making gun ownership more onerous for the vast vast vast majority of law abiding gun owners?

9) Why? What business is it of yours?

10) Do you have any concerns that this will prevent people from reaching out for needed help?

[Sancho]

16. No problem...

1) Which other rights should require regular licensing and renewal at the whim of state and local legislators?

There are lots of licenses and certificates in every state. All this one would do would help prevent dangerous people from easy access to guns and ammo. The most common license today is a carry permit. Carry permits are legal and are at the whim of state and local legislators.

2) Which legal and medical standard are you going to use as the benchmark for your health care professionals to bless off on folks? Which conditions are disqualifying?

No medical standard necessary. If you go for a driver's license, you don't have an ophthalmologist testing your eyesight! You just read the signs and move on. If you can't read then you are referred to get corrected and come back. Same thing for a license to possess a gun. You have a superficial examination, answer a few questions, get a reference, get parents to sign, etc. If you can't meet a superficial standard - then you have to get clearance from a professional. Just like a driver's license, your state would set up the rules and parameters.

3) Do I need a different class for both my Springfield 9mm pistol vs my Glock?

Not an issue. My license does not restrict or name any particular weapon. It's a people license, not a gun license. You could possess a 50 cal machine gun with proper licensing. Your state may require a reasonably different standard from some classes of weapons just like a commercial truck license is different than a motorcycle license, but the basics would be the same.

4) Why am I responsible for the crimes of other people? What about neighbors? People in the same building?

Why should the public be subject to the dangers of unstable, dangerous people with guns? Many of those people are as often emotionally ill as much as criminal. Some are untrained. Some are juveniles. Your only responsibility is to not break the law. If you are a safe person, you would have no problem. OTOH, you and your family would be safer if dangerous people did not have easy access to guns.

5) Insurance doesn't cover criminal acts as it stands. What constitutes proof of appropriate storage? A receipt for a $6 cable lock or am I required to invite the police into my home to inspect regularly?

Just like all insurance, the state may require a policy with limits, but private companies would set their rules and rates based on actuarial statistics, experience, and application information. Some companies might have lower rates if you have proof of gun security for example. My homeowners here in Florida inspected my home for sinkholes and high-wind roofing. As such, I pay less. You pick the policy that suits you.

6) Not sure what purpose this serves...

Really? You don't know the logic of a waiting period?

7) Illegal on its face...

Not really. In many states guns can be collected and people held. I'm sure you saw the recent case of a gun collector in NJ who faces jail time for having an unlicensed handgun in his glovebox. If you try to openly take a gun into an airport, see if you are not detained or your weapon taken. Obviously states can enforce restrictions and laws.

8) Why would I have to give up my right to self defense once I leave the boundaries of my home? If your goal is to prevent shootings then what makes you think that a dedicated shooter would follow such a restriction? How does this improve anything as opposed to making gun ownership more onerous for the vast vast vast majority of law abiding gun owners?

If you have a need for self-defense, your license might say so. I believe that's the case now. Otherwise, you would be taught and required to secure your weapon and prevent some of the recent shootings where bra holsters, children in shopping carts, and many other examples of accidental and preventable shootings occurred.

This type of license would help screen unstable people, untrained people, etc. from easy access to guns. It would eliminate background checks at the point of sale, etc. You would have a valid license, you show it, and you could make a purchase. If you were under court order for domestic abuse, couldn't get insurance because you had a history of accidental shootings, or had just been released after a suicide attempt, etc.; then you could not have a license. Even criminals (over time) would find it much harder to easy access to guns and ammunition. Stable and law-abiding folks would be fine.

9) Why? What business is it of yours?

Read the introduction paragraph. Here in Florida, the unstable people are everywhere. I'm not safe with them on the loose (neither are you). That's why it's just as much my business as any other citizen that illegal and widespread use of guns can be traced. It's no problem unless a shooting is investigated or a crime is investigated. No more onerous than taxes, auto ownership, getting on a plane, or enrolling in school. It's just basic, self-report information for the records. It's not a national database.

10) Do you have any concerns that this will prevent people from reaching out for needed help?

Not at all. Actually, it would likely get help for people who needed it before they killed themselves or others. At the least, it would make it more difficult to be a danger.

[Oktober]

19. I think this bit from your post about sums it up...

Here in Florida, the unstable people are everywhere. I'm not safe with them on the loose (neither are you).

That is a decision made on emotion and not facts.... Don't expect everyone else to conform to whatever makes you personally scared.

America is one of the safest places in the world and the actual odds that you will actually encounter a mass shooter are infinitesimally small. That's reality...

Looking for a guarantee at the expense of everyone else is unethical...

[Sancho]

20. It's not an unreasonable fear, and my observation is based on facts.

Sorry to inform you. Besides my own personal experience, there are LOTS of reports and concerns about proliferation of guns, lack of mental health, easy access to guns, etc.

There is nothing to sum up. It's time for the US to grow up and quit allowing a dangerous situation to continue. I've offered a reasonable solution, not just to mass shootings, but to accidental shootings, criminal shootings, and individual shootings.

Unless you are pretty old, I've likely used guns longer than you've been alive. I've lived in half a dozen states from Alaska to Florida. I first hunted with a gun as long ago as the early 60's, have shot guns recreationally, and been through training.

America is NOT as safe as places I've traveled in parts of Europe and Australia. This is simply because we allow untrained possession and use of guns even when people are unstable, criminal, or immature.

Reality is that if America is so safe, you don't need a gun on your hip or under your pillow for protection. Reality is that gun deaths are approaching or have equalled auto crash deaths. Reality is that many murders, suicides, mass slaying, and accidental shootings are preventable if PEOPLE who should never have had access to a gun were prevented from having it.

[Oktober]

22. Gosh....

If you could just control people's actions added in with a bit of precognition then bad things wouldn't happen...

How reasonable of you...

My point stands in that you are extremely unlikely to encounter gun violence and expecting others to change their behaviors to suit you is wrong.

[Sancho]

25. Why do you make things up?

No one is controlling behavior or using precognition.

Can you drive as fast as you want? Society uses reasonable controls to protect the public.

I happen to work in social science research. Even though I personally may not encounter a shooter or win the lottery, it is extremely likely that SOMEONE will encounter an unstable person with a gun, or a person who is suicidal, or someone who is a teenager out of control TODAY. Just like someone will win the lottery, we just don't know who. So your challenge is based on faulty thinking.

If fact, it's almost predictable it will happen often in 2015, and its much more likely someone in the US will be killed as a result compared to other countries.

A license to prevent unstable and dangerous people from easy access to guns is a logical way to deal with the problem.

[Oktober]

28. Someone will encounter something extremely rare...

Not much of an insight...

This is simply because we allow untrained possession and use of guns even when people are unstable, criminal, or immature

Unstable according to whom and to what legal and medical standard?

Criminal? Prior to commission of a crime or before?

Immature? What does that even mean? Who gets to decide who is immature or not?

[Sancho]

33. You are not likely to be in a car wreck today....

but you wear a seatbelt. Someone will be in a wreck and it might be you.

That is also why we should keep guns out of the possession and use by people who should not easily have them.

If you are threatening others, have a history of emotional depression, or are under treatment for an emotional illness, then you should be screened professionally before you can possess guns.

Convicted criminals buy guns every day now. If all gun sales (and ammunition) required a license, it would be more difficult. In other words, you can't rent a car without a valid license and credit card. If you have a criminal record, the state would not issue you a license to possess a gun. If you are under court order, the state would not issue you a license to possess a gun.
It's not rocket science. If you are caught with a gun and no license, you should automatically lose that gun and be taken in. You can't buy or sell controlled drugs with a license or prescription. If you are caught buying or selling drugs illegally, you lose the drugs and go to jail.

I'd say a 5 year old with a 9mm is an immature person with a gun. As I put in my proposal, there needs to be an age requirement unless children are supervised (like a learner's permit). That's what I meant by immature.

[William Seger]

36. Domestic violence is prima facia evidence of uncontrollable anger issues

People with demonstrated uncontrollable anger issues should not be allowed to carry weapons. Some "gun rights" advocates don't seem to understand the principle of "your rights end where mine begin."

[Oktober]

37. We already have laws against...

... violence, threats, assault, murder and domestic violence.

All this precog stuff is creepy...

[William Seger]

38. Then I suppose you think...

... people convicted of DUI shouldn't have their drivers license taken away?

[flamin lib]

26. Sorry to argue but

a US citizen is 6 times more likely than a Canadian (closest country by demographics, income/educational level and second most deadly by gun country) and 12 times more likely than the next closest country. A woman is 11 times more likely to be shot in the US than in any other similar country.

And before you demand links, statistics, sources ad nausium do your own homework. I've already done mine.

[Oktober]

29. Interesting...

What are the odds per capita that a person will be caught up in a mass shooting?

IOW, if it is 1 in 1,000,000 and the odds are 5 times as likely... It is still 1 in 200,000 and not very likely...

[flamin lib]

30. Forget your red herring.

Nowhere in this thread or in the OP is anyone but you talking about mass shootings.

[Oktober]

31. No problem...

Change it to just killed by a firearm period...

Rare is rare.... and according to current stats becoming ever more rare by the minute... Violent crime is down down down...

[Sancho]

34. Exactly...

and the amazing thing to me is that the same argument occurs over and over, even if no one is limiting any specific gun or even if there is no national database or even if the lawful person is not threatened.

The propaganda is so effective, that any attempt to limit any person from having whatever gun they want is opposed without reason.

One reason to require insurance is to obtain real information about who is likely to misuse a gun. Insurance companies keep very good statistics. A lot of building codes and auto safety improvements were based in insurance company numbers.

[CreekDog]

45. there are regulations on all sorts of activities and licensing for them

surely you aren't saying that while we require licenses for fishing, hunting, driving, etc.

...that the ONE THING we should exclude from licensing or regulation is the use of a tool whose sole purpose is killing?

[NickB79]

41. I'm sorry you feel so unsafe where you are

Statistically, the number of people killed or injured with firearms in the US has fallen to the lowest level in 25-30 years, if not lower: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

It has actually been cut almost in half since the mid-90's, which is quite mind-blowing given that the number of guns in the US has roughly doubled in that time, and we've actually removed major federal gun laws (the 1994 AWB). You're likely safer today than when you were a child.

[Sancho]

42. Statistical trends of this type are irrelevant as long as there are any deaths at all...

trends are not as useful as comparisons to other countries. They are also not as useful as local situations.

If people had to have a license to possess a gun, then some deaths would be prevented (no matter how I "feel&quot or any demographic trends.

Even thought the "number of guns" has increased, they are located in fewer and fewer homes. The causes of crime rates changing have many theories, and the AWB is not likely a major reason. Do your homework.

If you have a better way to keep unsafe people from possessing a gun other than a license, then let's hear it. If not, you have nothing to say at this point to me. Rather than be difficult - please provide your solution!

[NickB79]

43. Statistics are irrelevant here? Hardly

We're not talking about abstract concepts here, but actual lives saved due to the massive drop in gun violence over the past 30 years.

"Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

These statistics are quite useful. Such massive drops in gun violence, in the absence of any major federal gun control legislation, AND with a massive increase in the number of firearms available to the general public, are only made possible if something in our society has started to shift nationwide. A few cities, or even states, changing laws wouldn't account for it. That knowledge is valuable, and if the underlying causes can be determined, could then be used to promote programs to reduce gun violence further.

If you have a better way to keep unsafe people from possessing a gun other than a license, then let's hear it. If not, you have nothing to say at this point to me. Rather than be difficult - please provide your solution!

Basically, you've presented no evidence that more licensing does anything to reduce gun violence, but you're demanding we keep trying it. Your proposal, to simply require a license for every gun purchase, would likely do nothing, because most states already require a license to purchase a handgun legally, and some states even require licenses to purchase certain long guns. All gun purchasers from firearms dealers need to pass an ATF background check as well. I WOULD propose a Universal Background Check law, so private sales were covered as well, though. Furthermore, licensing requirements haven't changed much in nationwide in the past 30 years, so it's unlikely that is what's behind the current drop in gun deaths. My proposal would be to study why exactly gun violence has fallen so precipitously, and fund programs that further those causes.

[Sancho]

44. We have theories about crime reductions.

It doesn't matter as long as there are more lives to save. Likely crime has been going down because of an older population, abortions being available, and some lessening of the war on drugs. There are many factors.

Next, we know from international comparisons that the U.S. would benefit from a license. We also know that the current system of background checks doesn't work. Of course, background checks would be part of obtaining a license, so that's fine if done correctly.

[DustyJoe]

32. ummmmmm

No !

[Paladin]

15. Frankly, I'm amazed by this.

I wonder how the NRA will respond to it.

[flamin lib]

17. The NRA has opposed this and are still trying to influence legislators.

To quote one Republican,"It's just another gun grab." The argument is that a restraining order isn't a conviction so it's guilty until proven innocent.

[Paladin]

23. Yeah, that sounds about right.

What a sad point we've come to, when the rights of domestic abusers to remain fully armed and dangerous are supported---and ultimately, probably prevail over the safety of the abused. Which leads right into the pro-gunner's tap dance about restraining orders: "Restraining orders? Just pieces of paper! Police officers? Don't have to defend you and they're hours away! Gityurselfagun, Gityurselfagun, Gityurselfagun, HEY!"

[Man from Pickens]

27. name of the bill was...

"The Disarm Spartanburg Act"

[Sancho]

35. and to think I used to live in Spartanburg...

I honestly don't miss some of the crazy conservatives in SC. I worked for one of Richard Riley's programs in the 1980's. SC has produced some good Democrats in the past. No state is really 100% red or blue.

[CreekDog]

46. No, it wasn't

but your attempt to mislead us is noted.

[Man from Pickens]

47. "attempt to mislead"

Check your paranoia at the door - some of us are trying to have a sense of humor here.

Those familiar with SC know that Spartanburg is a freak show of unparalleled WTFness : http://www.thesmokinggun.com/search/site/spartanburg