N.C. Law Encourages Guns for Victims

[Eugene]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081702236.html

N.C. Law Encourages Guns for Victims

By STEVE HARTSOE
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; 10:53 PM

RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina lawmakers have approved a measure that
would require courts to give battered spouses something extra when
they seek a restraining order _ information on how to apply for a
concealed weapon.

However, victim's advocates who support efforts to curb domestic
violence said the measure could end up causing more problems by
bringing guns into already volatile relationships.

<snip>

The measure becomes law Oct. 1 unless Gov. Mike Easley decides to veto
it. His office declined Wednesday to comment on his plans.

more...

[TahitiNut]

1. Gotta love our "Culture of Life"

None of that touchy-feelie therapy stuff. How about THAT for the sanctity of marriage, huh?

[bluestateguy]

2. Nobody is being forced to own a gun

I would oppose any law that did.

Let the people decide for themselves.

[Not_Giving_Up]

3. OK, so you take a battered woman and put a gun in her hand

The abuser comes over, and lets just say that he gets in the house. She pulls the gun, but she's scared to death. He takes the gun, kills her, and any children that are around. Maybe he then kills himself as well.

You don't put a gun in the hands of someone who is likely suffering from PTSD. (Oh, wait, yeah, we do that everyday in Iraq!)

If he doesn't get the gun from her, she's likely to blow him away without thinking about it. Are they going to try her for murder if she can't prove that her life was in immediate danger?

[Dolomite]

7. This smacks of sexism

"She pulls the gun, but she's scared to death. He takes the gun, kills her"

Am I over-hearing an argument at the local bar about why womens shouldn't be allowed to be cops?

[Fescue4u]

10. "the abuser comes over"

You mean the guy who is ignoring the court ordered restraining order right?

Yea, its better than when he ignores the law, they he be free to beat her and not have to worry about her fighting back I guess.

wouldnt want to ESCALATE things......

[iverglas]

11. a point worth making

One I've often made myself, and one that you shouldn't expect anyone to have the slightest understanding of, or desire to understand:

You don't put a gun in the hands of someone who is likely suffering from PTSD.

And not only because s/he is at increased risk of using it on him/herself.

I suffer from PTSD, a result of a violent and life-threatening incident as a young adult, as well as a prolonged psychologically traumatic event in my childhood (the kind of thing that "sensitizes" people to subsequent trauma) and a couple more similar things in later adulthood. One of those "complex" PTSDs. I know that I my responses to some situations are impaired -- I am not completely able to block the "extreme" feelings/ideas those situations prompt, even if I manage not to make a habit of acting on them.

The point really isn't that she's likely to blow him away without thinking about it. It's that she's likely to be thinking about what is, to her, the very real POSSIBILITY that SHE is going to be killed, a lot of her waking moments, and living with the FEAR that at any moment it will happen, and under the influence of the exaggerated fight or flight response to fear-inducing stimuli ... which can be as mundane as a loud noise (honking car horn) ... or unexpected knock at the door. That one can be a killer, as it were; trust me.

Are they going to try her for murder if she can't prove that her life was in immediate danger?

She might very well be able to show that in her condition, she did have a reasonable apprehension that her life was in danger, and reasonably believe that she had no alternative but to use force to defend it.

There'd still be someone unnecessarily dead or injured.

[MeatLoafZero]

4. This is silly.

First off, does anyone not know that guns are available, that they have to be told?

I thought at first that the waiving of the 90-day waiting period was a good idea on its own, but if things have gotten to the point where you don't think you'll be around in the next three months, get away.

I'm going to be sexist here for a moment and presume that this law is aimed at battered women specifically. I can easily believe that their guns would be taken from them if they have that moment of doubt. The kitchen has a plethora of potentially lethal items that require no waiting period, and you would have the same justification for using them as you would in shooting the abuser. He has to sleep sometime, after all.

Nice to know that NC lawmakers have solved all of the other problems while I've been away.

[Giant Robot]

5. This is ridiculous!

There are so MANY strong links to support the fact that having guns in a volatile situation will lead to a homicide or suicide. It's not even a debate; it's accepted as fact. True that does not mean that the gun causes any of the problems. I can concede that. But there is no need to tempt fate here in some ill-thought out way to appease the touchy-feely crowd and NRA people. Adding guns to DV situations will only lead to more people's lives being destroyed. That is all this will do.

[Dolomite]

6. Yes but

if that life being destroyed is the one belonging to a violent, estranged ex-boyfriend or husband - what's lost exactly?

[Silverhair]

8. Amazing how many are forgetting about the RESTRAINING ORDER.

All the antigun posters are acting as if they were still living together. With an RO they are separate and the marriage is ALREADY DEAD.

Regarding leaving. Often you CAN'T. Sorry but that is real world. Little things like jobs, children in school, expense of moving, ease of being found again, can make it impossible to move.

In getting a CCW permit, one has to take classes and qualify on a range.

Finally, many men won't pay attention to an RO, but they WILL pay attention to a .38 pointed at them.

The crap about, "He will take it away and use it on her." is exactly that - crap. The only way that can happen is if she is unwilling to pull the trigger. But in the CCW classes, they cover that. Don't pull a gun if you are unwilling to use it if you have to.

If there is a RO, her legal status regarding self-defense has been altered.

I suspect the antigunners would prefer her to be helpless and a statistic, than enable her to defend herself.

[Road Scholar]

15. We had 77 wives with RO's murdered in NC Last year.

They can have a gun with the present laws.This is for a concealed weapon and is strictly for the protection of the victim.

[iverglas]

16. so ...

This is for a concealed weapon and is strictly for the protection of the victim.

... it comes with some magic device that prevents it from being used by anyone else and for any other purpose?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

20. so ...

I suspect the antigunners would prefer her to be helpless and a statistic, than enable her to defend herself.

Whyzat, exactly?

My theories seem to have offended, but I'm not seeing any explanation that would suggest there was any money behind that mouthful that would prove 'em wrong.

[Road Scholar]

22. Restraining orders aren't worth the paper they're written on.

When it comes to an enraged drunken jealous ex with a gun or a club or a knife.Don't expect a piece of paper to stop him. I'm just saying when it comes to protecting one's self,don't expect him to be civilized and orderly. There have been some awful scenes here in NC that a well placed 9mm would have prevented. I have served on a domestic violence board and I was shocked how little protection there is for a ex wife of one of these animals. What do you suggest? Call the police? 30 minutes later headlines in the local paper. I've seen it too many times.:shrug:

[Fescue4u]

9. Better than disarming victims

as some less free states prefer.

[NightRainFalls]

12. I don't like this law, because

getting a firearm is a highly personal decision. If someone wants a gun they should be able to get one (as long as they are not a felon or found to be mentally unfit), but the government should not be spending money informing people of their right to own a firearm. Using a gun properly requires training, and practice. If someone isn't willing to look up how to receive a gun permit they probably won't get training or practice.

I don't think an abused person can gain that training fast enough for them to use the gun effectively unless they have a lot of commitment. I believe it is important to let qualified individuals own firearms, but the state shouldn't be encouraging ownership in those who haven't shown the will to get a firearm permit themselves.

Dave

[Endangered Specie]

13. Eh, I could go either way on this law...

depends on the details, and specifically what victims will get this information (do we include victims whose attackers are in jail, what crimes, pending circumstances)

Most importantly, do we give this information to men with abusive/battering wives? (it does happen, and same question with lesbian or gay couples?)

[jody]

14. SCOTUS said in CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, (000 U.S. 04-278)

CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES

QUOTE
We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
* * * * * * * *
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.
UNQUOTE

NC is just doing its job by helping potential victims exercise their inalienable right of self-defense. I would be more pleased if government gave potential victims a handgun and training.

[iverglas]

18. so, Eugene ...

Cat got your tongue?

[Remmah]

19. Bad idea!

People need to make a disciplined-trained-educaded decision before the purchase of a firearm. I wonder how many knee jerk emotional purchases will be made? They're treating the symptoms and not the disease. Emotion+firearm=disaster.

For years I've been teaching my wife, son, and daughters the finer points of firearm responsibility and ownership.

[slackmaster]

21. I pretty much agree with you Remmah

I personally did not buy a firearm until I was in my mid-20s and had calmed down to the point where I could trust myself with one.

I didn't buy a handgun until age 40 after I got divorced. During my marriage my wife insisted on there being no handguns in the house (handguns and children don't mix well), and all long guns securely locked up. We were (and still are) in complete agreement on gun safety issues.

Of course the VERY FIRST thing I bought after we separated was a Springfield Armory M1911-A1 pistol, something I had wanted since childhood.

[aikoaiko]

23. I'm abivalent.....

From what I gathered from the article, the law gives out information on how to get a CCW permit, not how to get a gun. For some that may not be a meaningful distinction, but its not the same as, "here's a Smith&Wesson686 with your copy of the RO" or even, "here are the step to gettin a gun". I would hope they give out other information on how to save a life (securing homes, installing security, safe-shelters, etc) too.

But even if it does encourage people to get a gun after they've been abused, I'm ok with it because when one fears for good reason for one's own life or the lives of those they are to protect (e.g., an physically abusive husband says he will kill her and the kids if she goes to the cops), then that's a perfect emotional reason to get a gun.

I agree though, that one of the consequences for giving out this information is that more abused people may get guns and carry them, and this may lead to more unjustified homocides even it does lead to more abused persons saving their own lives.

The law apparently allows the sheriff to consider shortening the 90 day waiting period for the CCW for the physically abused -- this is a great idea.