Whitmer bans guns

[TC Talks]

Excellent, I didn't see this one coming, but it's a good start...

People with domestic violence convictions of any kind won’t be allowed access to guns for eight years under legislation signed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Monday.

The legislation, Senate Bills 471 and 528 and House Bill 4945, suspends access to guns for those convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. Those subject to the ban would be prohibited from buying, owning or transporting firearms for eight years.

State law already prohibited those convicted of felonies — including domestic violence felonies — from owning a gun three to five years after they complete their sentence.

But there was no state law banning those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning a gun. There is a federal ban that does that, but gun reform advocates argue it does not apply to all domestic abusers and relies on limited federal resources for enforcement.

“These bills are based on a simple idea: If you have been found guilty in court for violently assaulting your partner, you should not be able to access a deadly weapon that you could use to further threaten, harm or kill them,” Whitmer said before signing the legislation in Kalamazoo.

The new laws will take effect early next year and make Michigan the 34th state with laws on the books temporarily banning anyone convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning guns, according to the Giffords Law Center.

Under the legislation, several misdemeanor charges — including stalking, assault, destruction of property, vulnerable adult abuse and sexual abuse — would be considered domestic violence if the perpetrator’s victim was their current or former spouse, current or former dating partner, a resident of their household, parent, guardian or co-parent of a child.

Whitmer was joined at a Monday bill signing ceremony by lawmakers, domestic violence survivors and advocates, who said the new laws would give abuse victims another tool to help protect themselves.

Martha and Rick Omilian, Plainwell residents whose daughter Maggie was shot and killed by an ex-boyfriend in 1999, said the legislation could help save the lives of others trying to get out of a violent relationship.

“A convicted domestic violence offender, male or female, has shown by their past behavior that access to a firearm is not appropriate,” Rick Omilian said. “This is not a violation of their rights or a threat to those who are responsible gun owners. But it is a reasonable action due to the past behavior and the history of the abuser.”

The bills had support from a few Republicans in the Legislature, but most opposed the package on grounds that the denition of what misdemeanor convictions constitute domestic violence was too broad and the punishment too severe.

Rep. Phil Green, R-Millington, previously told Bridge Michigan the state would be better served by focusing on enforcing existing laws, investing in education and addressing substance abuse.

A legal challenge to federal laws banning those subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, after opponents argued it violated the Second Amendment. The federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas ruled that law unconstitutional in February, arguing the ban was “an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted.”

More than 70,000 people reported being the victim of domestic violence in Michigan in 2021, including more than 50,000 females and almost 20,000 males, according to data from Michigan State Police. A total of 88 died.

Domestic violence victims are ve times more likely to die when their abusers have access to guns, according to a 2020 study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

[Graham Wellington]

Why just guns? Why not ban ownership of knives, bats, hammers, vehicles, or any other object that can kill?

[Taco]

I welcome the reform. Interestingly, my parents who are in their 70's are against it, but they are Trumpers and believe everyone is out to take their rights away and blah blah blah. How could any sane person want domestic abusers to have guns?

[Deleted User 16144]

I welcome the reform. Interestingly, my parents who are in their 70's are against it, but they are Trumpers and believe everyone is out to take their rights away and blah blah blah. How could any sane person want domestic abusers to have guns?

What gives you the idea that only “Trumpers” are for gun rights. I’m a Democrat and own many firearms and am against this reform.

[Rate This]

Why just guns? Why not ban ownership of knives, bats, hammers, vehicles, or any other object that can kill?

At least it gives the people a small chance to get away. A gun will take that away at 100 yards. I’d like to see a knife, bat, hammer or vehicle stop someone at a distance.

[Graham Wellington]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 656285007/

"Among the high court misdemeanors and felonies that legislative analysis indicate now will be potentially subject to a three- to five-year gun rights suspension: Certain lobbying and campaign finance violations, false statements on a veterans benefit application, certain gambling offenses, disorderly conduct at a funeral, possession of an aquatic prohibited species and knowingly allowing an MMA or boxing professional to compete against an amateur in an amateur contest."

Just what many suspected - this legislation isn't about protecting domestic abuse survivers.

[TC Talks]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 656285007/

"Among the high court misdemeanors and felonies that legislative analysis indicate now will be potentially subject to a three- to five-year gun rights suspension: Certain lobbying and campaign finance violations, false statements on a veterans benefit application, certain gambling offenses, disorderly conduct at a funeral, possession of an aquatic prohibited species and knowingly allowing an MMA or boxing professional to compete against an amateur in an amateur contest."

Just what many suspected - this legislation isn't about protecting domestic abuse survivers.

I thought all gun owners were law abiding citizens? Graham, you will be happy to learn it should also protect YOU.

[Round Six]

I have no problem with what TC started this thread with. The key word is convicted. Only those who are convicted. Unfortunately, I truly feel it won't be too long before accused will be good enough.

And that's when I see problems. A messy split up. Family and neighbor disputes. Some kid don't get their way.

One falsely accuses another out of spite. And some sportsman is done hunting over something he never did.

And don't come back and say there will be safeguards in place. There won't be. Democrat or Republican. You're guilty until proven innocent in this day and age.

[Graham Wellington]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 656285007/

"Among the high court misdemeanors and felonies that legislative analysis indicate now will be potentially subject to a three- to five-year gun rights suspension: Certain lobbying and campaign finance violations, false statements on a veterans benefit application, certain gambling offenses, disorderly conduct at a funeral, possession of an aquatic prohibited species and knowingly allowing an MMA or boxing professional to compete against an amateur in an amateur contest."

Just what many suspected - this legislation isn't about protecting domestic abuse survivers.

I thought all gun owners were law abiding citizens? Graham, you will be happy to learn it should also protect YOU.

Good point. I forgot people lost all rights when breaking any and all laws. With that in mind, I'm pushing for 3 to 5 year suspension of the 1st amendment for anyone busted for speeding, cutting the tag off a mattress, and professionally wrestling without a license.

[TC Talks]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 656285007/

"Among the high court misdemeanors and felonies that legislative analysis indicate now will be potentially subject to a three- to five-year gun rights suspension: Certain lobbying and campaign finance violations, false statements on a veterans benefit application, certain gambling offenses, disorderly conduct at a funeral, possession of an aquatic prohibited species and knowingly allowing an MMA or boxing professional to compete against an amateur in an amateur contest."

Just what many suspected - this legislation isn't about protecting domestic abuse survivers.

I thought all gun owners were law abiding citizens? Graham, you will be happy to learn it should also protect YOU.

Good point. I forgot people lost all rights when breaking any and all laws. With that in mind, I'm pushing for 3 to 5 year suspension of the 1st amendment for anyone busted for speeding, cutting the tag off a mattress, and professionally wrestling without a license.

When words can cause mass murder, I'll support that.

[bmw]

I fundamentally disagree with this legislation insofar as if you've committed a crime such that society considers you too dangerous to own a gun for the next 8 years, then perhaps that crime you committed should be a felony and not a misdemeanor. Translation: The better solution would be to make certain domestic violence offenses felonies instead of misdemeanors. And if it isn't serious enough to be a felony, then it isn't serious enough for one to lose their 2nd Amendment rights.

This law will end up challenged in court at some point.

[Bryce]

When words can cause mass murder, I'll support that.

Hmmmm....

[Bryce]

This law will end up challenged in court at some point.

Chicago judge rules federal statute barring felons from possessing guns is unconstitutional but says it’s a ‘close question’

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ch ... r-AA1jYoYq

[craig11152]

When words can cause mass murder, I'll support that.

Says the guy whose profile picture is somebody responsible for 8 million deaths +/-

[TC Talks]

When words can cause mass murder, I'll support that.

Says the guy whose profile picture is somebody responsible for 8 million deaths +/-

Yes, all with guns. Was this your point?