Governor McAuliffe surrendered on his repeal of handgun carry reciprocity between Virginia and many other states. Republicans in the state apparently agreed, in return, to prevent people subject to "permanent" protective orders for domestic violence from carrying guns for the two years during which the order is valid. (Yes, two years is "permanent" in Virginia.) That seems like a very worthy trade to me, as so-called 'permanent' orders involve a real court hearing in which both sides are allowed to present their side -- they're not issued just for the asking, or on one person's unchallenged testimony. Violence against women over domestic issues remains a serious matter. Two years is probably long enough in most cases for the tortured romantic feelings to pass away, after which it's not an issue on the same scale.
So, well done. And a compromise of a sort, which should make Cassandra feel good about her southern neighbors.
20 comments:
As I've seen pointed out elsewhere, this is spin. The Governor of Virginia lost nothing. The Legislature could have restored reciprocity themselves. But he "negotiated" and got it back. If this is negotiation, then it is also negotiation if I tell you that I will destroy your mailbox with a baseball bat unless you mow my lawn. What have I actually given up? Destroying your mailbox? This is negotiation? The VA legislature got played for fools here.
And after you mow my lawn, I can always go back and use the same threat. Now I want to borrow your ladder unless you want your mailbox to suffer a grisly fate at the hands of my Louisville slugger. We're negotiating again! What will the legislature do about that? If he goes back in six months and removes reciprocity again, they can maybe surrender another concession in return! What a deal!
Hmmm. I had never heard of a permanent restraining order, but apparently it requires the presentation of evidence:
A person seeking a permanent protective order must show:
He or she has been subjected to an act of violence, force, or threat within a reasonable time; or
A warrant for the arrest of the alleged abuser has been issued for any criminal offense resulting from an act of violence, force, or threat.
The Governor of Virginia lost nothing. The Legislature could have restored reciprocity themselves.
Perhaps, but were they willing to go to the mat over this? Did they have the votes?
"Could have" and "should have" are not the same as actually doing something, and up until the legislature does something, the status quo was that Virginia wasn't recognizing concealed carry permits from other states.
This seems to be an issue people discuss a lot - an allegation is made that nothing was gained because in some hypothetical world we're not actually living in, a condition which is obviously not the case in the world we *do* live in might occur.
It bothers me, too, that politics is often a big game of chicken, Mike. But that ain't "the system" - that's human nature. "Says who? You gonna make me?"
People can assert all sorts of hypothetical rights, but without active enforcement/defense of those rights (which can be costly, and often occurs at the expense of some other priority), they're not guaranteed. And active enforcement/defense, sadly, requires will, sufficient consensus to vote for resources/redress, and all that other tiresome stuff :)
...which is why compromises are so often necessary - in a world where resources and time are limited, we can't go to the mat over every single issue. So people negotiate a mutually acceptable set of tradeoffs.
I often don't like it either (and honestly, I'm torn on restraining orders, having witnessed how utterly worthless they can be too many times). But there are so many things I wish were different in life.
I wish my husband would just agree that I am wise, all-knowing, and always right and he should do whatever loopy thing I'm suggesting at the moment. I suspect he wishes I would just defer to him on decisions, too. But since we disagree (and everything's not equally important) we must often compromise.
Excuse the thinking out loud :p
According to what I've been reading from VCDL, legislative overturn was unlikley (though of course possible). I'm not sure it wasn't a good compromise in any case -- domestic violence really is a serious concern, and this solution is the best way of balancing that concern with gun rights that I've seen. It doesn't strip a man of his gun rights forever but only for a time sufficient that most people will stop being love-crazy during it, and does so only with effective due process. It's a much better approach than, say, Frank Lautenberg's -- but also better than leaving the question unaddressed.
Why? Public outrage? chamber of commerce get 10,000 calls about out of stater's vacationing somewhere else? Angry Virginians upset at losing their reciprocal rights n other states? The threat to rescind funding for his protection detail? It was a decision clearly in opposition to his beliefs, if he has any, that is. Be nice to know what the lever was .
most people will stop being love-crazy
That's a strange definition of love ("If I can't have you, I'll just kill/beat you" doesn't fit any definition of love I recognize.
Sounds more like narcissism to me. Nothing would make me run from a man faster than him thinking he is entitled to my coerced affections. I know you understand that, Grim - I've never known you to endorse domestic violence. But it sounds odd to equate violent bullying behavior with love.
It was a decision clearly in opposition to his beliefs, if he has any, that is.
*snort* :)
I suppose I should qualify my statement and explain. I actually agree that this "compromise" is not a bad one. I have no issue with treating someone who has had legal due process tell them that they are a danger to someone else and must stay away from them being restricted from purchasing a weapon. Now, this is potentially open to abuse, but hopefully that can be mitigated by clarifying the actual legal process (if I can take out a permanent restraining order on you without you being present in court and only to a preponderance of the evidence standard, that's a problem; but if I have to convince a court beyond a reasonable doubt that you are a threat to me, then that's not). And like Cass, I'd like to see an actual restraining order that holds teeth (not a "well, if he kills you, we'll add violation of the restraining order to the list of charges" kind of deal).
But I draw a fundamental distinction between "compromise" and "extortion". There is literally nothing the Legislature is doing in which the Governor gives up anything at all. He can simply wait till they pass his "compromise" and then rescind the reciprocity again. What's their recourse? Demanding another "compromise"? If they don't have the votes now to overturn the reciprocity repeal, do you think the votes will magically appear to rescind the previous "compromise"? I don't. Oh sure, one or two of those who supported the "compromise" will be outraged to the point of saying "fool me once", but they're going to be the minority.
No, this is extortion, just as I described above ("nice mailbox, it'd be a shame if anything happened to it"). It doesn't matter if we can sit back and say "ya know, maybe it's not such a bad idea to add permanent restrainees to the list of banned buyers". That doesn't change the fact that the method used to achieve it was extortion. Calling it a compromise, cheapens the term.
That's a strange definition of love ("If I can't have you, I'll just kill/beat you" doesn't fit any definition of love I recognize.
I'm just following the ordinary translation of eros as "love." What I am trying to talk about is the kind of madness associated with eros, so very different from "love" in the sense of philia or agape or caritas. But it's not just self-centeredness in the way that narcissism is. It's the blinding, maddening passion that eros can sometimes produce.
The problem is ancient and well-known, but we still don't have good answers for it. This is one of the better ones I've seen, is all I meant to say.
Waaayyyydaminute!!
We're debating the merits of taking away a person's 2nd amendment rights based upon bad words and thoughts someone may or may not have said or thunk (yes, it's a word, just ask me!)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I coulda swore that that could only happen to one who has actually been, yanno, convicted of a crime through the 5th's due process clause - and not just any old crime, but one that runs afoul of federal statutes.
And before you get all riled up about my apparent lack of concern for domestic violence and such, that's not the real point here. They're going to take away a right that was so important to the Founding Fathers that they put it second on their top 10 list of "really important, unrevokable things that government can never take away". Based upon what again, exactly? He said, she said and they believe it has a definite possibility of maybe happening "sometime"?
And this is a good thing?
Color me somewhat appalled.
Yes, Mike, I may be out-libertarian-ing you again. 😎 But there are a few things on which I balk when asked to accept compromise or limitations. The Bill of Rights and Constitution are at the top.
Oh and before you ask, agreeing with Cass is probably up there, too.
😈
Yes, Mike, I may be out-libertarian-ing you again. 😎 But there are a few things on which I balk when asked to accept compromise or limitations. The Bill of Rights and Constitution are at the top.
I don't believe you actually are. I did specify that the process for these permanent restraining orders (that process which I currently do not know) needs to rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law. That is, in fact, legal due process. And it doesn't prevent the restrainee from owning a gun, merely purchasing one in the State of Virginia. That's a lower burden, as is appropriate for a lower standard. If the Legislature had agreed that a Virginia resident was barred from owning a gun under such a restriction, then perhaps I'd see things differently.
Since you can only buy handguns in your own state, it might prevent you from owning a handgun for two years if you don't own one already.
McA reminds me of Benedict Arnold and Judas. Although that's probably complimenting the traitor.
So people negotiate a mutually acceptable set of tradeoffs.
Which is why compromise is inefficient. No people, no problem.
Since you can only buy handguns in your own state, it might prevent you from owning a handgun for two years if you don't own one already.
However, it does not bar you from owning weapons you purchased before the restraining order was put into place. And color me tyrannical, but I worry about the motives of someone who seeks to purchase their first weapon only after having such an order placed upon them.
"However, it does not bar you from owning weapons you purchased before the restraining order was put into place,"
No, it doesn't bar you from owning them. However, the right to bear arms doesn't just mean the right to simply have them in your home. It means not only being able to have but also to actually be able to use them when and if the situation calls for it. The VA compromise violates that right even further by elevating the simple possession (and just who determines what 'possession' means, anyway?) of a gun from a misdemeanor to a felony while someone is the subject of a "permanent" protective order.
"A compromise on the details of two key provisions salvaged the deal: The penalty for somebody carrying a firearm while subject to a permanent protective order was increased from a misdemeanor to a felony...."
Ok, I missed that part, so they're saying that you can't bear arms without having been stripped of your rights through full due legal process (i.e. having been convicted of a felony). Yeah, that's a paddlin, Virginia.
If it had been "for this two year period where you've made yourself a credible threat to another human being to the satisfaction of a court of law, so no new gun purchases for you" that would have been ok with me. "You may not own a gun" puts us square into the issue I had with the whole "No Fly List" ban. You cannot strip a citizen of Constitutionally protected rights without full due process of law. Period. If that person is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, you need to arrest them for whatever dangerous thing they're doing and put them in jail. If they're not doing anything dangerous enough to lock them in prison for, then you cannot take their rights. It's that simple.
" If that person is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, you need to arrest them for whatever dangerous thing they're doing and put them in jail. If they're not doing anything dangerous enough to lock them in prison for, then you cannot take their rights."
Exactly!!!
The idea that they're going to take away an involuable right on the "definite possibility of an affirmative maybe".......then we've not only greased that slippery slope but have also re-routed Niagara to fall over it - carrying every one and thing with it.
IM(ns)HO, this is a very bad deal for the citizens of Virginia.
Post a Comment