Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:32 AM Nov 2012

Wisconsin residents need stricter gun laws

It’s no secret Wisconsin has had a bad year with gun violence. In August there was the shooting in Oak Creek at a Sikh temple, leaving seven dead including the gunman, according to the Washington Post. More recently, there was a shooting in Brookfield at the Azana Salon and Spa, which left three women dead — including the gunman’s wife — and four more injured before the shooter turned his gun on himself.

According to the Associated Press, this latest attack has been the momentum behind two lawmakers’ push for more restrictions on gun laws when it comes to domestic violence.

Wisconsin Sen. Lena Taylor said, “The shooting highlights the need for better law enforcement that require restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons.”

Currently, according to a Legislative Reference Bureau analysis, the law mandates perpetrators of domestic abuse, child abuse and harassment are not able to possess any firearms. People who have caused some type of harm to others are also not allowed to have firearms.

http://www.fourthestatenewspaper.com/opinion/2012/11/07/wisconsin-residents-need-stricter-gun-laws/
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wisconsin residents need stricter gun laws (Original Post) SecularMotion Nov 2012 OP
I don't have much of a problem with this, but it probably won't do any good. Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #1
Excellent post.nt Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #4
Such laws have been proven to be useless and in recent news too. Clames Nov 2012 #2
"Seems"? rl6214 Nov 2012 #14
Same thing we do in MO glacierbay Nov 2012 #3
If the guns are sold, who gets the money? nt rrneck Nov 2012 #6
I believe, according to my Division commander glacierbay Nov 2012 #8
I agree. nt rrneck Nov 2012 #9
Could that be considered "theft under color of law". oneshooter Nov 2012 #12
I don't thinks so glacierbay Nov 2012 #15
The shooter had to break several laws to do what he did. PavePusher Nov 2012 #5
restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons..maybe not a bad thing. ileus Nov 2012 #7
The shooter at Azana's had a lenghty criminal record. GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #10
As a Wisconsin resident, no thankyou. N/T clffrdjk Nov 2012 #11
So you've contacted your WI congressmen to make that happen? rl6214 Nov 2012 #13
 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
1. I don't have much of a problem with this, but it probably won't do any good.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:45 AM
Nov 2012
"Wisconsin Sen. Lena Taylor said, “The shooting highlights the need for better law enforcement that require restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons.”

Currently, according to a Legislative Reference Bureau analysis, the law mandates perpetrators of domestic abuse, child abuse and harassment are not able to possess any firearms. People who have caused some type of harm to others are also not allowed to have firearms."


In principle, I don't have much of a problem with people who have restraining orders issued against them having to give up their guns.

There is one issue I foresee, however - revenge restraining orders being filed by a partner who wants to force the other partner to have to divest themselves of their firearm property.

But I don't see how it can work anyway:

"However, the new law may not have helped even if it were in place before the shooting at the Brookfield spa, where Radcliffe Haughton opened fire at the spa where his wife worked Oct. 21. They were going through a divorce, and three days prior to the shooting, she had issued a restraining order against him.

According to the Associated Press, he was asked to surrender any weapons he may have had before the shooting, although it is unclear whether he turned any in or not."


As long as we have anonymous firearm ownership, and we must, then the government will never know how many firearms a person owns to confiscate them, which, of course, is the whole idea behind anonymous firearm ownership. So they will have no way of knowing how many firearms, if any, to confiscate from someone under a restraining order.

I have heard many firearm owners over the years advocating keeping a junk gun that can be turned in in case of government confiscation efforts, so that you can be seen as complying.

Of course, the article has some other obvious bias problems:

"The day prior to the shooting, Haughton went out and purchased a .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun from a private dealer, according to police in Brown Deer, a suburb of Milwaukee where Haughton lived.

The seller did nothing illegal — individuals aren’t required to conduct background checks or enforce a 48-hour waiting period as licensed gun dealers are under state law."


Note the wording here "a private dealer". Then they come back and clarify this as "individuals".

Then there is this slip:

"Even if Haughton had given up all his firearms, he could have just as easily bought a gun from a private seller within the hour.

However, if laws on selling guns privately were beefed up, it could require individuals to do a background check on perspective buyers, which might cripple the private selling practice in Wisconsin."


And now you can see the true agenda here.

As I've said before, a simple way to handle this problem is to use an opt-out licensing system. Then any private seller will simply record the buyer's FOID information.
 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
2. Such laws have been proven to be useless and in recent news too.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:50 AM
Nov 2012

Seems the OP doesn't pay attention to the news and rather just dump random Google stories...

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
3. Same thing we do in MO
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:52 AM
Nov 2012

if a restraining order is issued, the recipient of said order is ordered to relinquish any and all firearms, name goes into a database of temp. prohibited persons, any weapons are stored in our evidence room until final outcome of case and then either returned or sold.
Now, that won't stop someone from buying from a private seller and that's why I do support opening up NICS to private sellers to determine if the buyer is a prohibited person or not.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
8. I believe, according to my Division commander
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:34 PM
Nov 2012

it goes into the city general fund, which, IMHO, should be changed, the money should go to the owner of the firearms, or at the very least, a large % of it.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
15. I don't thinks so
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:59 PM
Nov 2012

but I'll look into it tomorrow morning w/our IAD lawyers.
I do think that any firearms confiscated and not returned due to an order of protection that later results in a conviction that DQ the person from owning firearms should be compensated for the cost of their property.

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
5. The shooter had to break several laws to do what he did.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:28 PM
Nov 2012

What additional law would have stopped, or even delayed, him?

ileus

(15,396 posts)
7. restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons..maybe not a bad thing.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:21 PM
Nov 2012

but then again are we going to search or just ask for them?

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
10. The shooter at Azana's had a lenghty criminal record.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:35 PM
Nov 2012

It was already illegal for him to have a gun. Of course, murder is illegal too. What additional laws do you think would have stopped him?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Wisconsin residents need ...