NRA A Rated Missouri Rep Calls for More Gun Control


PDA






Jeff White
February 16, 2006, 05:02 PM
This guy waves his "A" rating from the NRA like a battle flag as if it somehow justifies automatically disarming people who argue with their spouses.


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/73F0A973B7588361862571170001FD65?OpenDocument
]New laws will protect families better
By Sherman Thompson Parker

02/16/2006

Domestic violence invades a home and destroys a family in America all too often. It is referred to as the silent crime because of the untold women and children who suffer in secret.

Each year, women are victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes, 29 percent of which are perpetrated by intimate partners such as husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends and former boyfriends. It is time for Missouri to move into the 21st century to combat the epidemic of domestic violence in our society.

As a representative with an "A" rating from the NRA, I am an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment. At the same time, we must recognize the urgent need for a rational approach to the dangers presented by firearms in domestic violence situations.

A constituent of mine from St. Charles County told me her personal story of domestic violence. Her ex-husband was forced to leave their home by the police to help defuse a domestic violence dispute. But he was allowed to leave, she said, with his firearms in hand. Unlike a drug sting, at which law enforcement officers are required to remove every firearm from the scene, Missouri statutes do not require the removal of firearms from the scene of domestic violence disputes.

I believe we must be extremely careful not to trample the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens' right to bear arms. Nevertheless, in the 21st century, we can use new ideas to solve old problems. We can find a way to honor gun owners' rights and, at the same time, punish those who use firearms to batter, intimidate or murder their loved ones.

The need for change in the world of domestic violence is urgent. Because of the current situation, more and more adults and children are suffering. We need legislation that ensures the best interests of those involved in a domestic dispute-- and of society as a whole -- by limiting access to guns.

We need to allow law enforcement officers to remove firearms from the scene of alleged acts of domestic violence. We also need safeguards built into the process. Law enforcement agencies must safely store any seized firearm for as long as any relevant domestic-violence court proceeding is pending. The gun owner may reclaim the weapon only after proceedings have concluded.

In order to protect those who might be hurt by domestic offenders, we also have to tighten regulations on those who can carry a gun. Sheriffs should have the legal authority to deny applications and revoke permits or registrations for concealed weapons if the individual is subject to an existing order of protection relating to domestic violence.

This also would apply to people who have been convicted of domestic assault or of violating an order of protection while using or possessing a firearm. The same retrictions should apply the shipment of firearms. And, finally, Missouri must come into compliance with the Federal Violence Against Women Act.

I feel strongly that these measures will do a great deal to protect victims of domestic violence and to prevent futher violence.

Sherman Thompson Parker, a Republican who represents parts of St. Charles County in the Missouri House of Representatives, is a regular contributor to the Commentary page.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA A Rated Missouri Rep Calls for More Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
February 16, 2006, 11:01 PM
I believe we must be extremely careful not to trample the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens' right to bear arms. Nevertheless...

Sounds like Liar Gore to me.

Dannyboy
February 16, 2006, 11:14 PM
I think it's safe to say that his A rating just went down the toilet.

mcooper
February 16, 2006, 11:21 PM
I'm a ardent communist, but it is apparent that capitalism is just plain better.


(note this comment is meant as a parody)

pcf
February 16, 2006, 11:29 PM
Each year, women are victims of more than 4.5 million violent crimes, 29 percent of which are perpetrated by intimate partners such as husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends and former boyfriends. It is time for Missouri to move into the 21st century to combat the epidemic of domestic violence in our society.


I always hoped that we could move into the 21st century without discriminating against 3.2 million victims of violent crime.

The need for change in the world of domestic violence is urgent. Because of the current situation, more and more adults and children are suffering. We need legislation that ensures the best interests of those involved in a domestic dispute-- and of society as a whole -- by limiting access to guns.


I thought politicians aspired to stop crime? I guess some people set lower goals than others.

CaesarI
February 17, 2006, 12:39 AM
Laws which make it illegal to own firearms if you have committed a particular crime have 3 possible outcomes:

1. The former criminal obeys the law. Nothing happens. Best of all possible outcomes.

2. The former criminal ignores the law (since it is in practice unenforceable) and shoots someone (in this case the estranged spouse) anyway.

3. The former, or accused criminal, obeys the law and as a consequence of obeying the law and being disarmed is attacked by someone else and, unable to defend himself, comes to harm. Optionally the person's livelihood may be damaged by their inability to have contact with firearms such as if the person is military, or a gun dealer.

The problem with all of these laws is very simple and we've been screaming it at the top of our lungs for decades now: Gun laws only disarm the law abiding.

Ask yourself seriously if someone inclined to obey laws that make it a crime to own firearms is likely to commit violent crimes or not.

Domestic violence *is* very sad, but anyone who has ever witnessed it will agree that the saddest part is that the victim:

Does nothing to stop the attacker.
Defends the attacker afterwards (often after calling police).
Is *very* likely to go back to the attacker.

Laws preventing these attackers from owning firearms are completely and utterly useless.

Zundfolge
February 17, 2006, 01:03 AM
We need to allow law enforcement officers to remove firearms from the scene of alleged acts of domestic violence.
In other words we need to allow law enforcement officers to remove your constitutional rights without a trial and conviction.

3rdpig
February 17, 2006, 01:59 AM
One of the real problems here is that all a woman has to do is report to the police that "he threatened me and he's got guns". It doesn't matter if she's got proof, or if there were any witnesses or even if she's telling the truth or not. All she has to do is say "he threatened me" and your guns and your rights are gone. You may get it all back someday if she wasn't telling the truth, and then again you may not.

This is the thing that scares me about laws that give cops the power of a judge, or give it to legislators such as in Jessica's law. I won't deny that there are bad judges, but that doesn't mean we should take their authority and give it to cops or legislators. Our justice system is broken, but taking away the power of the judge and giving it to someone less capable is not the solution.

fistful
February 17, 2006, 03:02 AM
Since when does the lack of a firearm prevent a guy from hurting or killing his wife/girlfriend?

How often are firearms used for this purpose?

Why remove from the home the woman's best means of self-defense?

Hawken50
February 17, 2006, 05:43 AM
yeah this is a great idea. cops get called to a house for domsetic dispute. cops are "required" to remove all firearms from scene. cops kick the guy out of the house. cops leave. guy comes back with a tire iron. woman is now defensless. woman gets blunt object lobotimy.

yep great idea.

Kodiaz
February 17, 2006, 08:15 AM
Sounds like it's time to make this guy a former state legislator who got voted out of office by angry citizens

Reno
February 17, 2006, 09:43 AM
I think it's safe to say that his A rating just went down the toilet.Don't be so sure about that.

Ezekiel
February 17, 2006, 09:45 AM
Laws which make it illegal to own firearms if you have committed a particular crime have 3 possible outcomes:

You forgot, or omitted, number four: a convict is in legal possession of a firearm.

"Such is a bad, bad thing."

Gun laws only disarm the law abiding.

Great rhetoric, but not inherently true. :banghead:

sm
February 17, 2006, 10:16 AM
From the bottom of the article originally posted, contact information . I mean that is what it is there for - right? ;)


http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/73F0A973B7588361862571170001FD65?OpenDocument

Sherman Thompson Parker, a Republican who represents parts of St. Charles County in the Missouri House of Representatives, is a regular contributor to the Commentary page.

E-mail: sherman.parker@mo.house.gov

900 N Tucker Blvd
Saint Louis, MO zip code
Phone: (314) 340-8500



--Recall the latest warnings about "annoying" someone via Internet.

--Suggest double checking the address I found using Teoma, if you would prefer to convey by letter just how "annoyed" this makes you feel.

--err... don't forget a 2 cent additional stamp if you still have some 37 cent ones like *someone* I know. [I liked the antique car ones :p ]

Spot77
February 17, 2006, 10:42 AM
Assuming the commentary didn't omit some important information, no actual gun crime was commited??? Only perceived as a "possible" future crime?


She should've gotten her own gun if she was so scared.

Art Eatman
February 17, 2006, 10:54 AM
I'm totally against a ban of ownership/possession as a result of domestic stuff. The federal law, IMO, is a Really Bad Thing.

But I'm not totally against some sort of "cooling down period" sequestration. Some sort of short-term reduction of availability of a firearm. It's already known that the most dangerous deal for most cops is a family squabble. Emotions are high and folks get out of any self-control.

Husbands shoot wives; wives shoot husbands, cops get shot. I can see why somebody would try to make it safer for all concerned.

Again, though, short-term. Not a ban, not a permanent take-away.

Art

Old Fuff
February 17, 2006, 11:05 AM
Rep. Parker and many other defenders of abused women often ignore the fact that spiteful ones are not above claiming they were abused, when in fact they weren't. In too many instances restraining orders are issued against the man on the basis of a woman's unsupported claims. Thereafter the man's firearms are picked up until he can prove he's innocent. It would be interesting to see how Mr. Parker and others might address this issue in they're proposed law. :uhoh:

Hawken50
February 17, 2006, 12:12 PM
i must respectfully disagree with you about a "cooling off period" if the cops take guns from a scene, they would have to take all the guns, his, hers, anybodys. thusly leaving the woman (who may already be in danger in the first place, after all, the cops are there) defensless.

Merkin.Muffley
February 17, 2006, 12:22 PM
Hopefully the NRA will revaluate their "A" rating.

Art - can you provide any statistics that demonstrate that these "cooling off periods" work? Without some supporting data, I believe you're wrong.

ThreadKiller
February 17, 2006, 12:36 PM
Alcohol is an absolutely montrously HUGE factor in domestic abuse and has been for AGES!!!! If this guy is so concerned about domestic abuse, why isn't he campaigning for alcohol control?

Hypocrite.

Ezekiel
February 17, 2006, 12:58 PM
i must respectfully disagree with you about a "cooling off period" if the cops take guns from a scene, they would have to take all the guns, his, hers, anybodys. thusly leaving the woman (who may already be in danger in the first place, after all, the cops are there) defensless.

I agree with Art. Why? Because you argument contains therein a rather large fallacy: it presumes the man/woman would remain on the scene, and/or in the situation, after the cops leave.

Hey, "that's his/her problem."

Take the guns from the scene, enforce some sort of temporary seperation and -- if the IDIOT goes back -- it's "on them." :fire:

They can have their toys back when they can act like adults.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA A Rated Missouri Rep Calls for More Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!