The New York Times said the following in an editorial:
A man abuses and threatens his ex-wife. She tells a judge that she is frightened and that he is armed. The court orders him to stay away from her. Should it also order him to give up his guns?
Of course it should. If a protective order is to mean anything, the court must do all that it reasonably can do to keep a vulnerable person from becoming a homicide statistic.
An article by Michael Luo in The Times on Monday examined the threadbare web of protection for victims of domestic violence in a country overrun with guns. While there is a federal law that forbids most people subject to permanent protective orders to buy or own firearms, it was invoked fewer than 50 times by prosecutors last year. That leaves to the states the job of imposing meaningful laws to separate domestic abusers from their guns.
Most states are failing at that job. While a handful have laws requiring judges to order the surrender of guns when issuing any protection order, even temporary orders, most states do not go nearly that far. When legislators try to tighten the laws, they face the wrath of the National Rifle Association, whose relentless lobbying usually manages to kill or cripple such bills. Even modest “cooling off” laws — allowing sheriffs to confiscate weapons temporarily for the first, most volatile days of a divorce action or separation — have failed.
The NRA’s blind defense of individuals’ gun rights has left a catastrophic toll. Stricter laws could help stem killings in domestic-violence cases. But legislatures would have to place prudent safety measures over Second Amendment absolutism. There is evidence that it would work: a study in the journal Injury Prevention in 2010 examined so-called intimate-partner homicides in 46 of the country’s largest cities from 1979 to 2003 and found that where state laws restricted gun access to people under domestic-violence restraining orders, the risk of such killings was reduced by 19 percent.
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., recently introduced a bill to toughen the federal law to cover temporary protective orders and current or former “dating partners,” not just spouses. Congress should pass it, and states should reinforce it with their own laws, requiring judges to act when a person’s safety is at obvious risk from an ex-partner with a gun.MORE IN CommentaryJim Jeffords left us all too early when he had to retire for medical reasons in 2006. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Jim Jeffords' legacy, Brandon takes a few questions about proposed budget, beleaguered city playground likely to move, woman awakes to find strange man with knives standing at her bedside.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Former U.S. Senator James Jeffords dies Monday in Washington D.C., a local man is beaten and robbed while walking on West Street, Clarendon sets a tax rate and Brandon convenes an informational public meeting about its budget.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1915, the New York World publishes scoop: Thom. Edison diverts chemical from war production to help German pharmaceutical company make aspirin; on this day in 1935, Will Rogers, Wiley Post die in Alaska plane crash.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: State panel briefed on smuggling drugs into prisons; new French-German documentary about Vermont's heroin addiction; solar project at Vets Home falls apart; update dispute between Open Door Mission and treatment center.
- TODAY'S WEATHER MINUTE: Climatologists might not know as much about El Nino as they thought they knew. New studies show 10,000 years ago, El Nino was active, and polar ice sheets were rapidly melting — just like today.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: State colleges get a budget cut break, vandals spray paint Wallingford basketball court, state's attorney will replace lost deputies, cop lawsuit proceeds, Mendon mini-golf proposal makes headway.