Democrats Propose Gun Confiscation During “Cooling Off” Period

Listen to the Story

The proposed legislation would require those subject to protection orders to temporarily give up their weapons to law enforcement.(Photo: Flickr)
The proposed legislation would require those subject to protection orders to temporarily give up their weapons to law enforcement.(Photo: Flickr)

When someone who is being abused leaves their abuser, they often find they are at a greater risk. The abused person sometimes gets a restraining order to keep the abuser away.

Now some lawmakers say authorities ought to temporarily take away the abuser’s guns too.

Democratic Representative Bob Hagan says the point at which an abused person leaves an abuser can be highly emotional. So he’s proposing a bill that would separate an aggressor from their firearms for a while.

It would allow police to take the abuser’s gun at the point when they serve the protection order.

The goal of this legislation is to protect victims and potential victims of domestic violence and prevent intimate partner firearm deaths, not to infringe upon an individual’s second amendment rights. Thus when a protection order is lifted, any firearms held by local enforcement people will be promptly returned to the owner. In effect, this law would implement a cooling off period for those served a protection order.

Democratic State Representative Nickie Antonio says statistics prove this initial period of separation is when most women, in particular, are hurt most vulnerable.

“Intimate partner violence alone affects more than 12,000,000 Americans every year. And women are impacted disproportionately,” Antonio says.

“One in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner. According to federal statistics, intimate partner homicides account for nearly half of the women killed every year and more than half of these women are killed with a firearm. That’s stunning.”

Nancy Neylon with the Ohio Domestic Violence Network supports this legislation. She says it would protect women at a critical time.

“One of the things that we know is that the most dangerous time for victims is when they are trying to get out of a domestic violence situation.

“And as that happens, as they are going forward with criminal charges or trying to get a civil protection order. As they are trying to leave that situation, that’s the time when the batterer is trying to increase their tactics of control. That’s the time that the threats occur, threats of ‘If you leave me, I will kill you.’ And that is an incredibly dangerous time.”

Jim Irvine with the Buckeye Firearms Association agrees that’s a dangerous time but he doesn’t agree with this bill and its cooling off period.

The gun really isn’t the issue. It’s the person who is committing the crime. Even if we could wipe all guns away, violent people are going to do violent things. They’ll stab, they’ll beat, they’ll club. Look at the FBI murder stats. We’ve got over twice as many people who are killed with hammers and clubs than rifles. So we need to focus on the people and the violence and maybe the mental health aspect of this.

Irvine says taking guns away from people when they are served a restraining order would open law enforcement up to new problems. He says take gun collectors for example: they might have very expensive guns in their possession, guns that need special care that police agencies are unlikely to provide.

“If we seize them and treat them like they do all other guns, they damage them. And they may do $10,000 worth of damage to a gun. And who’s going to pay for that? There’s nothing in there for that. So the idea that the state can take your property and damage it when you haven’t been convicted or had a day in court or even been charged with a crime, I think it’s a serious issue that needs to be dealt with.”

The bill is supported by Democrats in a Republican controlled legislature.

  • Just Plain Jim

    What if the predator owns no guns but has skill with an Exacto knife and knowledge of the whereabouts of the victims carotid artery ?

  • Bubba

    P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }A:link { }

    See here:

    or here:

    In March, PoliceOne conducted most
    comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’
    opinions on topic gripping nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun

    More than 15,000 verified law
    enforcement professionals took part in survey, which aimed to bring
    together thoughts & opinions of only professional group devoted
    to limiting & defeating gun violence as part of their sworn

    Totaling just shy of 30 questions,
    survey allowed officers across United States to share their
    perspectives on issues spanning from gun control & gun violence
    to gun rights.

    Top Line Takeaways:

    Breaking down results, it’s important
    to note that 70% of respondents are field-level law enforcers —
    those who are face-to-face in fight against violent crime on a daily
    basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or
    perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

    1.) Virtually all respondents (95%) say
    that a federal ban on manufacture & sale of ammunition magazines
    that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

    2.) majority of respondents — 71% —
    say a federal ban on manufacture & sale of some semi-automatics
    would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than
    20% say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing
    violent crime. Just over 7% took opposite stance, saying they
    believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

    3.) About 85% of officers say passage
    of White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero
    or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10% saying it
    would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

    4.) 70% of respondents say they have a
    favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’
    public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun
    laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61% said they would
    refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

    5.) More than 28% of officers say
    having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would
    help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by
    more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about
    19%) & more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15%).

    6.) overwhelming majority (almost 90%)
    of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed
    citizens were present at onset of an active-shooter incident.

    7.) More than 80% of respondents
    support arming school teachers & administrators who willingly
    volunteer to train with firearms & carry one in course of job.

    8.) More than four in five respondents
    (81%) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun

    9.) More than half of respondents feel
    that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have
    a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

    10.) When asked whether citizens should
    be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed
    to buy a gun, about 43% of officers say it should not be required.
    About 42% say it should be required for all weapons, with remainder
    favoring training classes for certain weapons.

    11.) While some officers say gun
    violence in United States stems from violent movies & video
    games (14%), early release & short sentencing for violent
    offenders (14%) & poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill
    individuals (10%), majority (38%) blame a decline in parenting &
    family values.

    Bottom Line Conclusions: Quite clearly,
    majority of officers polled oppose theories brought forth by
    gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon
    capabilities & production would reduce crime.

    In fact, many officers responding to
    this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect
    their ability to fight violent criminals.

    Contrary to what mainstream media &
    certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly
    favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in hands of
    responsible people, & are skeptical of any greater restrictions
    placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

    officers patrolling America’s
    streets have a deeply-vested interest — & perhaps most
    relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to
    controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting &/or
    prohibiting an armed populace are wise & effective. With this
    survey, their voice has been heard.

    Note that above is NOT views of
    National Association of Chiefs of Police, a group who since 70′s &
    earlier have been vehemently for gun control & against 2nd
    amendment, against law-abiding citizens owning handguns or any guns,
    & against concealed carry. They are a political org of police
    chiefs APPOINTED by mayors of (mostly) larger cities who are against
    2nd amendment/concealed carry as a matter of policy. Even their
    individual views tend to change (a little bit) on occasions where
    they move from a larger city with high crime problems & strong
    gun control laws to a smaller city/town/locality with lower crime
    problems & with shall-issue concealed carry laws. But that
    individual view is never allowed to be expressed to public through
    NACP who will be anti-2nd amendment & anti cc for next 10-20
    years, while time & successes of cc laws, & law changes that
    will take place as more & more citizens conceal carry &
    demand changes in laws so they are not charged with violating a gun
    law inadvertently.

    Pete Shields, chairman of what is today
    the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New
    Yorker 1976

    We’re going to have to take one step at
    a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political
    realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be
    satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal —
    total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take
    time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow
    down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The
    second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem
    is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition
    — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards,
    licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally

    “Germans who wish to use firearms
    should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns,
    as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.” –Heinrich

    2007 300,000,000 294 million

    2008 12.709

    2009 14.033

    2010 14.409

    2011 16.454

    2012 19.592

    2013 11.445 (June)

    total 88.642

    388 million 382 million 15% 2 guns,
    400 million.

    NICS checks, according to DOJ:

    2007 294 million

    2008 12.709 million

    2009 14.033 million

    2010 14.409 million

    2011 16.454 million

    2012 19.592 million

    2013 11.445 million (June)

    total 88,642,000

    382 million if only 15% of purchasers
    purchased just 2 guns, 400 million guns are in the US now, not 300
    million. When will the news media adjust their numbers?

    Firearm retailers have been reporting
    that 20 to 25 percent of their firearm sales over the past few years
    have been to new customers that are purchasing their first firearm.
    (That’s about 18-23 million NEW customers, first firearm), about 5-7%
    more of the general population in US?)* source, NSSF. Fear? or
    just new, increased firearm owners, shooting more (and explaining
    somewhat the shortages of ammo found across US retailer shelves).
    Seems like the new normal until long term increased capacity in ammo
    manufacturing finally provides relief.

    A study by the Department of Justice’s
    research wing, the National Institute of Justice, has the feds
    admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major
    contributor to gun crime.

    The study also concluded those weapons
    are not a major factor in deaths caused by firearms, nor would an
    “assault weapons” ban be effective.

    “The existing stock of assault
    weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with
    exemptions,” it said. “Therefore a complete elimination of
    assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

    The report finds no significant link
    between “assault weapons” and murders.

    “Since assault weapons are not a
    major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of
    guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on
    gun violence,” the report said.

    The document, titled “Summary of
    Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” also sees no
    epidemic of mass shootings.

    “Fatalities from mass shootings
    (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account
    on average for 35 fatalities per year,” the report said.

    The report noted that a 2000 study by
    the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms revealed that _47
    percent_ of crime guns are obtained through a straw purchase, and
    another _26 percent_ are stolen.

    In the above paragraph, 73 percent of
    “crime guns” are through straw purchases or stolen. That
    leaves 27 percent, at a MAXIMUM, that the left can attribute to the
    so-called “gun show loophole”, if you exclude all other
    sources. Hmmmm. Not 40%. 27%. Think the mainstream media/gun
    banners will adjust their numbers/claims any time soon? Will the
    news issue corrections or start using more accurate numbers while
    they proselytize gun restrictions and denigrate the 2nd amendment
    hoping to change the discourse/atmosphere for future scotus cases
    after new justices are appointed favorable to their wishes?


    Earlier this year, President Obama
    ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the
    existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That
    report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National
    Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely
    please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should
    consider them. Here’s the more salient or surprising takeaways:

    Most indices of crime and gun violence
    are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined
    in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides
    specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes.
    “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent
    victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile,
    “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from
    1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional
    firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past
    century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related
    incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional
    fatalities in 2010.”

    We have 300 million firearms, but only
    100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one
    estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294
    million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million
    shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10
    people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the
    next most armed country. See above NICS checks for “concentration
    of ownership, or just what percentage of US owns guns (and who would
    or wouldn’t admit to, over a phone survey).

    Handguns are the problem. Despite being
    outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87
    percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns
    comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and
    non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer
    handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re
    “easily concealable.” And yet, despite the National Coalition to
    Ban Handguns/HCI/Brady, and Mayors Against All Guns, thanks to
    Miller/Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and the 2nd amendment itself,
    along with the Federalist Papers, handgun bans are no longer
    possible, as even Chuck Schumer (gun banner extraordinaire) now

    Mass shootings aren’t the problem.
    “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at
    Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of
    all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there
    have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a
    single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547
    victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun
    deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

    Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun
    homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides
    significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually
    accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died
    from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the
    report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a
    small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within
    days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate
    that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years
    after the purchase of the gun.”

    Guns are used for self-defense often
    and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate
    that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as
    offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging
    from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context
    of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says
    the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an
    extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than
    19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also
    seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about
    defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed
    the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which
    a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or
    threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates
    among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other
    self-protective strategies.”

    Carrying guns for self-defense is an
    arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets …
    could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense
    against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,”
    says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in
    the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.”
    According to a Pew Foundation (very anti-gun organization) report,
    “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them
    feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather
    than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they
    own guns.”

    It isn’t true that most gun
    acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The
    report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed
    retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced
    by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively
    concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80
    percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found
    that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers
    only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost
    equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity,
    drives the number of ill-fated sales.

    These conclusions don’t line up
    perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take
    them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research
    that have been blocked by Congress over politics. Yes, the facts will
    surprise you. That’s why you should embrace them.