This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

NRA Precludes Victims of Domestic Abusers from Being Protected

Most States Do Not Allow Confiscation of Weapons from Dangerous Estranged Spouses and Lovers - Law Enforcement Agencies Have no Way to Protect Innocent People from Harm

The extent to which the National Rifle Association has been taken over by extremists is illustrated in a New York Times story of Monday, 18 March 2013. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html)

 

It notes that due to the influence of the organization, most states do not allow confiscation of weapons in situations in which there is a clear and present danger of domestic violence.

Find out what's happening in Upper St. Clairwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

A case specifically cited in the story is that of a Washington State woman whose former husband threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, stating he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” She wrote to the court, “He owns guns, I am scared.”

The judge’s order prohibited the man from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns. About 12 hours after he was served with the order, he was lying in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.  She managed to call the police and was saved from what would appear to have been certain death or maiming.

Find out what's happening in Upper St. Clairwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Apparently even in extreme cases such as this, in which an individual has demonstrated himself to be a potentially violent anjd lethal menace, we must always err on the side of the “law-abiding gun owner” and against the protection of innocent people.  If someone is killed as a result, they must be seen as collateral damage in the unassailable Second Amendment right.

The deck is stacked against those who wish to be able to live their lives with a reasonable level of safety.  Thanks a lot, NRA!

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?