HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Wisconsin residents need ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:32 AM

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, 1891 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 15 replies Author Time Post
Reply Wisconsin residents need stricter gun laws (Original post)
SecularMotion Nov 2012 OP
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #1
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #4
Clames Nov 2012 #2
rl6214 Nov 2012 #14
glacierbay Nov 2012 #3
rrneck Nov 2012 #6
glacierbay Nov 2012 #8
rrneck Nov 2012 #9
oneshooter Nov 2012 #12
glacierbay Nov 2012 #15
PavePusher Nov 2012 #5
ileus Nov 2012 #7
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #10
clffrdjk Nov 2012 #11
rl6214 Nov 2012 #13

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:45 AM

1. I don't have much of a problem with this, but it probably won't do any good.

 

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:00 AM

4. Excellent post.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:50 AM

2. Such laws have been proven to be useless and in recent news too.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:58 PM

14. "Seems"?

 

I thought it was a certainty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 10:52 AM

3. Same thing we do in MO

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:20 PM

6. If the guns are sold, who gets the money? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:34 PM

8. I believe, according to my Division commander

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:37 PM

9. I agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:21 PM

12. Could that be considered "theft under color of law".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:59 PM

15. I don't thinks so

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:28 AM

5. The shooter had to break several laws to do what he did.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:21 PM

7. restraining order recipients to surrender their weapons..maybe not a bad thing.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:35 PM

10. The shooter at Azana's had a lenghty criminal record.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:38 PM

11. As a Wisconsin resident, no thankyou. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 04:57 PM

13. So you've contacted your WI congressmen to make that happen?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread