Guns Targeted In Domestic Violence, Stalking Cases

December 12, 2015

A House Democrat on Friday proposed a bill that would require people under injunctions for domestic violence, stalking or cyberstalking to quickly give up their guns. The bill would add to requirements in a law that already makes it a misdemeanor for people to have guns if injunctions are issued against them because of domestic violence, stalking or cyberstalking.

The bill, filed for the 2016 legislative session by Rep. Alan Williams, D-Tallahassee, would allow police officers to immediately require the relinquishment of guns when serving protective orders in such cases. If police officers don’t make such requests, the bill would require guns to be turned over within 24 hours to law-enforcement agencies or federally licensed firearms dealers. The guns would be returned or face disposal after protective orders expire.

by The News Service of Florida

Comments

7 Responses to “Guns Targeted In Domestic Violence, Stalking Cases”

  1. Traumaqueen on December 16th, 2015 11:26 pm

    How many abusers, whether it be a man or woman, admits to abusing someone else? Better to aire on the side of caution than to jeopardize an abuser retalliating or escalating? If the abuser did commit the crime then surely it didn’t matter if his rights were violated because he didn’t much care about breaking the law and losing his rights in the first place.

    I venture to guess that there are fewer false accusations than true cases of abuse. Just a guess..

  2. Sedition on December 16th, 2015 9:05 am

    If you’re going to be a bear, be a Grizzly. If they are going to attempt to remove Constitutionally protected rights without due process, make them pay a heavy price for it.
    “When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
    Thomas Jefferson
    3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

  3. Pensacola pete on December 14th, 2015 5:37 am

    SW is right, there is no due process. A constitutional right is suspended simply because a judge makes a ruling on “he said, she said” information.

    The right to bear arms is dismissed arbitrarily, but why stop there? If one right can be refused, what about the rest? Why not also take away the right to trial by jury? Someone tells the court you’re a threat and you’re imprisoned without trial for an indefinite time.

    Does a sworn statement justify suspending your Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of speech or allow cruel and unusual punishment?

    I agree that legitimate threats need to be contained but allowing any government agency to deny the Constitutional rights of citizens (that’s you and me, kids) opens the door to abuses our founding fathers feared over two hundred years ago!

    Soapbox returned to the next speaker.

  4. SW on December 13th, 2015 2:25 pm

    While they’re at it, why not go ahead and add them to the ‘No-Fly’ list?

    Where is due process, here?

  5. Esc co leo on December 12th, 2015 10:40 am

    Anyone can file for an injunction. If the alleged conduct is bad enough, the judge will immediately give a temporary injunction that is only valid until the hearing for the permanent injunction, which is usually two weeks. At the hearing, both sides present their case and the judge makes a determination.

    And yes, the law already requires people with a domestic violence injunction to surrender their firearms, and you cannot purchase others (there is a question on the background form about this when purchasing from a licensed dealer.)

    Of course, there are ways to still obtain guns, but it is an arrest able offense if law enforcement discovers it.

  6. Rufus on December 12th, 2015 7:36 am

    Can’t anyone go down to the clerk of court and file a domestic violence injunction?

  7. traumaqueen on December 12th, 2015 1:10 am

    Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t this already covered within the injunction itself? Am I missing something?

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News