Sunday, April 22, 2012

Domestic Violence? Blame the NRA

According to the anti-rights establishment, everything is the fault of the NRA, global warming, violence across the world, world hunger, everything. If there is a firearm involved, it's because of the NRA. This latest edition of Blame the NRA comes from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Posted on their Facebook page is a link to an article from pressdemocrat about a judge that didn't issue a restraining order against an abusive husband, and then they blame the NRA. The reason they blame the NRA is because the abusive husband, shot and killed his wife while she was leaving her divorce attorney's office. This happened in Sonoma County, CA. They should be blaming the death of this woman on the Brady Bunch. This man didn't get a gun because of the NRA, the wife couldn't carry one because of the Brandy Bunch and the restrictive gun laws of the state of California.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence She had been reporting abuse since 2009. But thanks to the NRA, unless you're under an ACTIVE restraining or you've been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor (and not all states prosecute such offenses), you're clear to buy as many guns as you want. It's a shallow and totally non-descriptive way to assess whether someone is a threat.

According to the CSGV, it's the NRA's fault that one can exercise his rights protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution even without being a convicted criminal or under a restraining order.

There are already laws in place in California to punish people that kill other people, I wonder what more laws the CSGV would want. Notice I didn't say to prevent people from killing others. Laws only prescribe what is not allowed and set forth the punishment for breaking those laws.

This husband carried a firearm to the wife's attorney's office. In addition to murdering people, concealed Carry and Open Carry are both against the law in California, is there some other law that would have prevented this man from killing his wife? No. Had the court issued a restraining order, would that have prevented the husband from killing his wife? No, the laws that he broke were no barrier to his intent on committing a crime.

Another thing I take issue with is the CSGV comment that the wife had been reporting abuse since 2009. That's not entirely correct either, or at least you can't gather that information from the article. The article says:

On March 6 she filed an application in Sonoma County Court for a temporary restraining order that included allegations of abuse dating to 2009.

She had reported abuse that occurred in 2009, not for the past 3 years. Did she report abuse over the course of the past three years? Who knows, but you can't derive that information from the article. Of course, the anti-rights establishment will out right lie about anything to bring sympathy to their cause.

This just shows the extent that the anti-rights bigots will go to dance in the blood of gun crime victims. If they are so outraged, I wonder where they were when this woman was being abused.

In the event that you didn't read the whole article, the restraining order was denied for several reasons. One of which was:

Judge James Bertoli denied the March 6 request for an emergency order, finding that some of the events happened too long ago to warrant immediate action. He agreed to reconsider her request on March 27. At that hearing, Kim Conover's lawyer withdrew the request for a restraining order.

The husband killed himself, too.

No comments:

Post a Comment