Quoted from “The Backfiring of the Domestic Violence Firearms Bans,” by Lisa May, published in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law in 2005.
Dale Barsness was a convicted wife batterer. At the time of his conviction, he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. He admitted in open court that he assaulted his wife, and the court found him guilty in a final adjudication of the matter. Because he was a convicted abuser, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits all persons convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from possessing firearms, applied to Barsness.
Barsness’s employer, the Minneapolis Police Department, required him to possess a gun. Since the federal law compelled Barsness to surrender his gun, he faced losing his job. A local judge took it upon himself to expunge Barsness’s domestic violence record, not because the matter was wrongly decided, or because it had been reversed and resolved in his favor, but simply because Barsness would otherwise be subject to suffer the consequences of the federal gun control law. The Hennepin County judge set aside Barsness’s adjudicated conviction, stating that because the federal law would force him to relinquish his gun and likely his job, the conviction created a “manifest injustice.” That local judge single-handedly overrode federal legislation, and Barsness was reissued his firearm and restored to his gun-carrying position (subject to appeal by the County Prosecutor).
In February 2003, a rural Missouri judge credited the testimony of a severely battered woman who described her husband throwing her to the ground, threatening her with death, and waking her in the middle of the night by holding her down and beating her. The woman’s husband admitted to the abuse in testimony under oath. The judge, however, denied the victim’s request for an order of protection, instead advising the woman to change the locks on her doors to keep herself safe. By denying the protective order, the judge allowed the batterer to escape the Domestic Violence Gun Safety Law, which prohibits individuals with civil protective orders entered against them from owning or possessing firearms. Later that day in open court, the same judge cited the approach of quail hunting season in open court as one reason not to issue another protective order.
I… just…. ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Why would someone who intends to kill their spouse obey a court order not to have a gun?
Because if it’s a legal gun, the court orders the person to turn the gun over (in those courts run by sane judges, that is). Even if it’s an unregistered weapon, the court might know about it because the spouse told them about it.
Anyhow, not everyone who ends up shooting their spouse intends to do at the time of the court order. Probably a lot of spouse-killings are crimes of spontanious passion (not that I’m saying that’s any excuse!).
Yes, but what I’m getting at is, if I intend to kill my spouse, a piece of paper from the court is not going to stop me. OK, I turned over my legal gun. I live in Colorado Springs, probably the most law-abiding and cop-heavy city in the country. I could get an illegal gun in an hour – it would be thirty minutes if I didn’t live so far from downtown.
I share the feeling that these judges are way out of line. Yet I cannot help but suspect that their actions are in part motivated by a sensible feeling that these protective orders are of little or no use in actually protecting women, and thus there’s a reluctance to screw up someone’s hunting season or what have you for no practical benefit.
Also, as a second amendment absolutist, I can’t see a constitutionally-acceptable case for taking away someone’s weapon. (I can see a case for locking someone up if they’re a threat, with due process.)
Sorry, left out a clause. Replace “taking away someone’s weapon” with “taking away someone’s weapon without convicting them of a crime that carries with it the forfeiture of some constitutional rights.”
Well, we could offer them the option of staying locked away until we have some sort of way to prove that they’re no longer a threat. Going to jail doe snot pacify people, so probably a 50 year sentence should be enough. By that point, they’ll have aged enough to be less of a threat. And then upon release they can have thier second ammendment rights back.
Oh, and Robert, since you seem to be in favor of letting violent criminal have guns, I assume you’re in favor of re-enfrancising them as well. Is that so?
As for what motivates the judges, you see good intentions, and I see contempt for women, as exemplified in Mens News Daily.
Josh –
What leads you to think that I have endorsed letting violent criminals have guns? I am so anti-civil-rights-for-violent-criminals that I believe in disenfranchising them, too.
But you aren’t necessarily a violent criminal just because you’ve got an order against you. Those orders are precautionary measures taken just in case. (Of course there are a lot of accused abusers who have already committed violent crimes, or who have threatened too, and who are thus, rightly, pretty much assumed guilty. But I’m talking about the other guys.)
My wife’s ex, for example, is no sterling fellow, and she had a restraining order against him at one point, mainly because of his (non physically threatening) verbal explosions. He’s not a violent criminal; he just raised enough red flags to make prudent officers of the court say “you have to stay away”. And he did.
If he had been planning to kill her, then he still would have. It wouldn’t have been difficult; she was in base housing and he had access to the entire base, including their house (within reason). The court order didn’t create an armed guard or a security perimeter; the most it did was to erect an additional mental barrier against violence in the mind of an orderly, law-abiding sort of fellow. Which may be of not inconsiderable value, I realize, and thus I support the idea of restraining orders and protective orders and whatnot.
But let’s be realistic about what sort of man those orders are helpful against – a numerical minority of the population, if my own life-experiential survey is anywhere close to representative. It requires judgment to know whether a particular man is in that group, the first syllable of that “j” word being the operative one. That kind of judgment is awfully hard to get through an Internet story (note my own misjudgment of the actions of a young male abuser in another thread, drawn from thirdhand sources), a lot more practical to judge in person.
But of course mistakes are going to be made, sometimes with crushing consequences to individual hopes and dreams. That’s a tragic cost of having fallible human beings in the loop.
But you aren’t necessarily a violent criminal just because you’ve got an order against you.
How would you even know this? Based on what?
Those orders are precautionary measures taken just in case. (Of course there are a lot of accused abusers who have already committed violent crimes, or who have threatened too, and who are thus, rightly, pretty much assumed guilty.
I notice the idea that there are batterers getting freebies seems to have passed you by.
But I’m talking about the other guys.)
Which guys? The guys who batter and get away with it because the ex is too terrified to say anything? Or the guys who get those ‘precautionary’ orders?
Robert, have you changed the subject of this discussion? The post was about a violent, convicted batterer. You’re talking about non-violent, non-convicted alleged batterers? what’s that about?
“taking away someone’s weapon”? with “taking away someone’s weapon without convicting them of a crime that carries with it the forfeiture of some constitutional rights.”?
I thought these people were convicted of DV, which by federal law means they forfeit their constitutional right to bear arms. Anyway, some convicted felons can’t get firearms, and neither can illegal aliens who otherwise have many of the same constitutional rights (miranda, fair trial, attorney, etc.)
Well, it’s only beating a woman, after all.
Robert wrote:
as a second amendment absolutist, I can’t see a constitutionally-acceptable case for taking away someone’s weapon without convicting them of a crime that carries with it the forfeiture of some constitutional rights.
Apparently, he couldn’t read “Dale Barsness was a convicted wife batterer”and comprehend that wife-battering is a crime that carries with it the forfeiture of some constitutional rights. At least, according to federal law.
Heaven forbid we prevent a violent person from hunting quail. Musn’t upset the little darling by preventing him from persuing one of his hobbies! Good grief.
“The Hennepin County judge set aside Barsness’s adjudicated conviction, stating that because the federal law would force him to relinquish his gun and likely his job, the conviction created a “manifest injustice.”? ”
So this violent person is allowed to continue in his job “protecting and serving” the community? Yikes.
Well, maybe they only mean protecting and serving the male part of the community.
The original post was about two cases, one a convicted batterer, one someone who had not been convicted. So I don’ t think it’s fair to say that Robert is changing the subject by discussing the second case.
Robert:
:shrug: If it stops some people on the margin, then I think that’s good enough. You completely ignored my point that not all murders are planned ahead; if we take away an element that makes spur-of-the-moment assaults more likely to be deadly, then that will help in some cases.
I don’t have a second amendment problem with taking a gun away from someone pending a hearing, any more than I have a problem with putting someone in a jail cell until they get a hearing.
Robert, I want to address the issue about how a protective order is a piece of paper that won’t actually prevent a batterer from hurting his partner. The PPO (that’s what we call them here in Michigan, other places it’s a TRO) may not actually stop a batterer from doing harm. But it does carry with it penalties. Violation of the PPO can lead to the arrest of a batterer. It can stop a batterer from harassing his partner at work, while they’re with the kids, stop him from harassing his partner’s friends and family. But most importantly, violation of a PPO helps set a precedent of behavior for the court and adds credence to a survivor’s claims. Judges tend to not understand domestic violence. They question why a survivor just doesn’t leave and they don’t understand the dynamic of power and control in these relationships. AS a result, they tend not to believe survivors or they think they’re exaggerating the situation. When a batterer violated a PPO, it starts to become clear to judges and a jury that the survivor is telling the truth. That is why its pretty much criminal that this judge decided not to grant a PPO. By doing this, he is showing that he doesn’t really care about that woman and DV at all.
The “If he really wanted to do x, decision y wouldn’t stop him” argument doesn’t work. We could say that about any crime, thus eliminating the need for any legal precautions to prevent crime.
A restraining order–which, I assume, must be considered legally reasonable–is a good minimum for taking away someone’s weapon, at least temporarily. If someone has been convicted of beating his wife, that’s an even stronger case. It’s an indication that he’s a threat, that his behavior could escalate into greater violence. I don’t see why we as a society should be expected to take that risk by allowing him to keep his gun.
If we’re going to make mistakes, it’s better to err on the side of safety.
No, the batterer may never use the gun, but that’s beside the point. Battery is not about random anger/violence. It is a system much like terrorism with actions played out in the private arena to enforce control and submission. An abused woman doesn’t need to be shot for the gun to have an effect on her.
As much as any citizen has a right to bear arms, other citizens (read: women) have an equal right not to be terrorized (Amendments IX and XIV).
Robert:
Off the top of my head, because you started responding to this post, which was about a violent criminal who was allowed to have a gun, and this quote:
Nowhere do you say “someone (except for violent criminal)’s weapon”. So it looked like you were talking about everyone. Now, if you’re talking *only* about people with restraining orders, you need to be clear.
Josh, I immediately amended that statement with an exception for convicted criminals.
Violent criminals, or all criminals?
Convicted felons.
Am I missing something here? Wasn’t Barsness a convicted felon? Isn’t the issue that the judge expunged his record with the purpose of allowing this convicted felon to have a gun?
Ahhh. Nope. I misread it. It was a misdemeanor. That leads to a different discussion entirely. Sorry about that.
So it’s a misdemeanor to beat your wife.
Yay.
In the initial example, they let the guy keep his gun because he was a cop and his job required him to have it.
I think somebody’s got their priorities wrong here.
The withdrawel of firearms rights from people convicted of domestic abuse is on the basis that these people are too dangerous to be allowed to have guns. Therefore, it stands to reason that they are also too dangerous to be allowed the responsibility of anything that requires them to have a gun. For example, police work.
In any case, police are supposed to protect the very people that this guy harmed. This is a conflict of interest. I really think people convicted of violent crimes should be banned from becoming police officers, in much the same way that convicted child molesters and sex offenders are prohibited from working in schools.
ginmar, that’s the entirely different discussion. I think I can guess where each commenter on this thread comes down on that.
So it’s a misdemeanor to beat your wife.
That depends on your jurisdiction. In Colorado, most of the crimes classified as domestic violence are felonies (assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment, murder, etc.). Some harassment is considered a misdemeanor, other harassment is a felony. Stalking is a misdemeanor the first time, a felony if you repeat.
Don’t know what your podunk legislature’s done.
well in michigan, DV is a misdeameanor too, unless you use a weapon or not. What qualifies as a weapon? An object. So it can be a bottle, a stick, an action figure- if you use those, that bumps the DV charge up to a felony. However your fists- not a weapon. Its bullshit in my opinion.
I wonder if it’s a misdimeanor to beat up a stranger.
Also, there’s an issue with the police in that they keep convicted wife beaters on staff.
Um…it’s kind of an issue that they keep convicted anthings on the staff.
You’re fit to administer the laws when you don’t obey them yourself? What’s the word I’m looking for?
The fact that beating up a woman–like beating up a man— doesn’t seem to be a crime seems to be escaping a lot of people. Why is that? Hell, beating up animals is worse than beating up a woman. Is there some sublety that I missed? This guy beat up his wife. He beat up a woman. IF he’d beaten up a man, there’d be commissions and civil rights protesters and shit. The minute he hit somebody with a vagina, though, it became what I’d guess is called a ‘misunderstanding.’
So, Robert, you got some ambiguity here? He beat up a woman and your issue is with his ability to…do a job where he’d have to help other women who’d been beaten by guys like him. What’s more important to you? The gun? Or the woman?
It’s moments like this that make me realize why I’m a feminist—-because I can value a woman’s right to be unbattered as being more fucking important than a man’s right to carry a gun. and to not see one goddamned thing wrong with that.
I don’t have a problem with the cop losing his job because of his conviction. That judge was wrong.
Pingback: blog alice
“In any case, police are supposed to protect the very people that this guy harmed. This is a conflict of interest. I really think people convicted of violent crimes should be banned from becoming police officers, in much the same way that convicted child molesters and sex offenders are prohibited from working in schools. ”
——————————
It’s harder to get hired with a DV conviction on your record in LE, than it is to stay in LE with a DV conviction on your record. Supposedly, any felony conviction and misdemeanor of moral turpitude including DV(and child molestation) disqualifies you from LE. Any good agency and its city/county/state/federal version of an H.R. department will screen for these things, including criminal checks and interviewing people in past relationships.
It’s not hard to stay in LE with a DV on your record. Not at all. I found out a detective who interviewed me as a witness to a battery but acted too emotional(of course, I didn’t know he was friends with the perpetrator, a prosecutor, at the time) and he made threats during the interview. I decided to check him out and sure enough, about 10 years ago, he was charged with misdeamanor DV, battery and child endangerment, after being arrested for punching his wife in the face while she was holding their infant, b/c she had asked him to feed the child. He was wrist-slapped, diverted for two years, then his record was expunged, but no record is truly cleared up. His, you could find out about online. And I did.
During a capital murder case, the defense atty asked me about this officer, and I wasn’t going to lie about the DV so I told him. He came back from the table while court was in session and said, are you sure? I said, yes. So, he asked the cop if he had been in trouble with the law, and the cop got really quiet and said, yes. But the way he explained it, it was an allegation that was dismissed. NOT TRUE. They brought it to a hearing, and the judge decided his actions were admissible as impeachment. The DA was stunned, b/c he didn’t withhold information, he just never thought to criminally check out a cop, before putting him on the stand. Now this cop, is impeached with his DV whenever he testifies. He has been promoted twice after his DV, once while in diversion, and now is a sergeant working in Internal Affairs. Among other responsibilities, the IA division screens ALL inhouse DV allegations, for administrative and/or criminal investigation.
(Another sad thing, was he was only the first cop I was asked about during that trial, who had a DV record)
This officer is a rarity though, a cop actually charged with DV, b/c most cases don’t make it that far. A study conducted by the Center of Women and Policing(which is under the umbrella of Feminist Majority) found that at least 40% of all LE admitted to DV behavior. The conviction rate in LE agencies is much lower, between 1-5%.
Further research led me to five other officers, detectives and sergeants with possible DV, noted in police reports and TROs filed by women, either wives, ex-wives or girlfriends. At least, three others, identities unknown, brandished firearms at their SOs in the past year, yet IA ignored the complaints filed by the women. Our police chief was investigated for misdemeanor DV late last year, and even though prosecution was recommended, no charges were filed.
We’re currently trying to come up with a written policy governing inhouse DV reporting and investigation. Only 45% of all LE agencies have them.
In California, battery and other DV charges pertaining to spouses, children, other relatives carries a 10 year prohibition on firearm ownership or possession. Cops get out of this ban, by pleading guilty to lesser misdemeanors instead of those that carry firearm prohibitions, i.e. disturbing the peace, or they get diverted.
More on police DV, including resources:
http://www.abuseofpower.info/