I've been waiting to see if my governor would sign the bill (he did) and if he would express concerns (he did). My concern about this is that I want anyone who is given such an emergency permit TRAINED to handle a pistol. The worst thing that can happen (IMO) is the victim points the pistol at her abuser and has the weapon taken from her and used against her (yes, I'm assuming the victim is a female as most are).
I am not posting this to have liberals bashed, though that will happen. I am not posting this to rant about the joy of killing abusers. I'd like to know if your state has such a provision and what you think of this idea.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2768588p-9207281c.html
Domestic violence bill signed
But Easley is uneasy about telling victims how to apply for a concealed gun permit
By AMY GARDNER, Staff Writer
Gov. Mike Easley has signed a bill that would encourage victims of domestic violence to seek emergency concealed gun permits -- but he now wants lawmakers to reverse it.
Easley had "concerns," according to a spokeswoman, about the measure's central provision: a requirement that court clerks tell victims who obtain protective orders how to apply for an emergency carry permit.
The governor signed the bill late Saturday only after receiving assurances from House Speaker Jim Black that the requirement would be lifted in separate legislation, perhaps this week, Easley spokeswoman Cari Boyce said. Black spokeswoman Julie Robinson confirmed that account.
From the start, the gun-permit bill has raised objections from advocates for both law-enforcement agencies and victims of domestic violence. Called the "Domestic Violence Victims Empowerment Act," the bill was written and promoted by Grass Roots North Carolina, a gun-rights organization.
"Even the name of it is just twisted," said state Rep. Jennifer Weiss, a Cary Democrat who opposed the bill. "To think that to arm all victims of domestic violence is going to somehow solve domestic violence problems is really simplistic."
The bill's main sponsor, Republican state Rep. Mark Hilton of Conover, disagreed, and he accused Easley of gutting a bill that most North Carolinians would view as an appropriate way to help battered women defend themselves.
Most domestic violence victims -- about 95 percent -- are women.
"The only people who have to fear legislation like this are domestic violence offenders," Hilton said. "I don't know what the problem is."
The N.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the N.C. Domestic Violence Commission and the N.C. Bar Association all opposed Hilton's bill, citing a statistical link between the presence of firearms in abusive relationships and the death of the victim. The N.C. Sheriffs' Association opposed an early version that eliminated sheriff discretion in awarding gun permits.
Opponents also noted that court clerks ought to be communicating much more to victims who seek protective orders than merely instructions on how to apply for a gun permit.
"This is the only mandatory information that courts would have to provide," said state Rep. Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat. "We need to give a much more comprehensive look at the information that courts should be providing victims after they receive a protective order. Many need help with custody, housing, finances."
Easley chose not to veto the bill, Boyce said, because he believed an amendment in separate legislation would address his concerns.
Hilton noted that an amendment was easier to get through the legislature, since his bill emerged from both House and Senate by veto-proof majorities.
Hilton, a supporter of gun rights, also questioned Easley's support for gun owners' rights in general.
"He's just done what it takes to be elected governor," he said. "Now he's opposed to doing something that gun-rights people overwhelmingly support."
Victim advocates said they would be happy if Easley's amendment goes through. The advocates have not been especially outspoken about the bill, which may be one reason why it sailed out of both chambers with little discussion. But their reticence was in part because of a reluctance to alienate conservative lawmakers whose loyalties might be divided between gun rights and domestic-violence policy.
"We think domestic violence is a bipartisan issue," Beth Froehling of the Coalition Against Domestic Violence said. "We've had lots of support from both Democrats and Republicans on very important legislation."
Boyce, the governor's spokeswoman, said the governor was concerned that court clerks would lose the discretion to consider particular circumstances, such as the mental stability of the victim, when deciding what to tell them.
The amendment would not change language in the new law that allows sheriffs, who are responsible for approving or denying permit applications, to consider a protective order as evidence that an emergency xists. However, sheriffs may already consider such an order.
The amendment is likely to be attached to the House's "technical corrections" bill, an end-of-session measure that corrects legal errors in the year's previous legislation, Black spokeswoman Robinson said.
Staff writer Amy Gardner can be reached at 829-8902 or [email protected].
I am not posting this to have liberals bashed, though that will happen. I am not posting this to rant about the joy of killing abusers. I'd like to know if your state has such a provision and what you think of this idea.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2768588p-9207281c.html
Domestic violence bill signed
But Easley is uneasy about telling victims how to apply for a concealed gun permit
By AMY GARDNER, Staff Writer
Gov. Mike Easley has signed a bill that would encourage victims of domestic violence to seek emergency concealed gun permits -- but he now wants lawmakers to reverse it.
Easley had "concerns," according to a spokeswoman, about the measure's central provision: a requirement that court clerks tell victims who obtain protective orders how to apply for an emergency carry permit.
The governor signed the bill late Saturday only after receiving assurances from House Speaker Jim Black that the requirement would be lifted in separate legislation, perhaps this week, Easley spokeswoman Cari Boyce said. Black spokeswoman Julie Robinson confirmed that account.
From the start, the gun-permit bill has raised objections from advocates for both law-enforcement agencies and victims of domestic violence. Called the "Domestic Violence Victims Empowerment Act," the bill was written and promoted by Grass Roots North Carolina, a gun-rights organization.
"Even the name of it is just twisted," said state Rep. Jennifer Weiss, a Cary Democrat who opposed the bill. "To think that to arm all victims of domestic violence is going to somehow solve domestic violence problems is really simplistic."
The bill's main sponsor, Republican state Rep. Mark Hilton of Conover, disagreed, and he accused Easley of gutting a bill that most North Carolinians would view as an appropriate way to help battered women defend themselves.
Most domestic violence victims -- about 95 percent -- are women.
"The only people who have to fear legislation like this are domestic violence offenders," Hilton said. "I don't know what the problem is."
The N.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the N.C. Domestic Violence Commission and the N.C. Bar Association all opposed Hilton's bill, citing a statistical link between the presence of firearms in abusive relationships and the death of the victim. The N.C. Sheriffs' Association opposed an early version that eliminated sheriff discretion in awarding gun permits.
Opponents also noted that court clerks ought to be communicating much more to victims who seek protective orders than merely instructions on how to apply for a gun permit.
"This is the only mandatory information that courts would have to provide," said state Rep. Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat. "We need to give a much more comprehensive look at the information that courts should be providing victims after they receive a protective order. Many need help with custody, housing, finances."
Easley chose not to veto the bill, Boyce said, because he believed an amendment in separate legislation would address his concerns.
Hilton noted that an amendment was easier to get through the legislature, since his bill emerged from both House and Senate by veto-proof majorities.
Hilton, a supporter of gun rights, also questioned Easley's support for gun owners' rights in general.
"He's just done what it takes to be elected governor," he said. "Now he's opposed to doing something that gun-rights people overwhelmingly support."
Victim advocates said they would be happy if Easley's amendment goes through. The advocates have not been especially outspoken about the bill, which may be one reason why it sailed out of both chambers with little discussion. But their reticence was in part because of a reluctance to alienate conservative lawmakers whose loyalties might be divided between gun rights and domestic-violence policy.
"We think domestic violence is a bipartisan issue," Beth Froehling of the Coalition Against Domestic Violence said. "We've had lots of support from both Democrats and Republicans on very important legislation."
Boyce, the governor's spokeswoman, said the governor was concerned that court clerks would lose the discretion to consider particular circumstances, such as the mental stability of the victim, when deciding what to tell them.
The amendment would not change language in the new law that allows sheriffs, who are responsible for approving or denying permit applications, to consider a protective order as evidence that an emergency xists. However, sheriffs may already consider such an order.
The amendment is likely to be attached to the House's "technical corrections" bill, an end-of-session measure that corrects legal errors in the year's previous legislation, Black spokeswoman Robinson said.
Staff writer Amy Gardner can be reached at 829-8902 or [email protected].
