Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Tue Feb 9, 2016, 05:20 AM Feb 2016

The danger between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ [View all]

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gave Connecticut an A-, its top grade, putting it alongside of New York and California as states with the tightest reins on guns. But advocates point to one major gap in the law — the lack of statutory language governing the early stages of cases of domestic abuse.

“It’s really about victim safety,’’ said Karen Jarmoc, CEO of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “We’re simply trying to create strong measure of protection at a dangerous time.’’

Federal and state law already stipulates that anyone convicted of domestic violence or subject to a court-ordered permanent domestic-violence restraining order can neither purchase nor possess a gun.

But both state and federal law do not provide such protections for victims who have obtained a temporary restraining order.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/The-danger-between-temporary-and-6810824.php
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Slanted. beevul Feb 2016 #1
Temporary restraining orders do not violate due process SecularMotion Feb 2016 #2
Picking cherries again? Straw Man Feb 2016 #3
You accuse me of cherry picking? SecularMotion Feb 2016 #4
Yes, I do. Straw Man Feb 2016 #5
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The danger between ‘tempo...»Reply #0