Very true on all points Deanimator. My favorite question when it comes down to gimmicky self defense tools is usually to ask the person if their wife/girlfriend/sister/best friend was in a parking garage alone with a big guy who is planning to rape her do they want here to have a whistle, sharp pointy thing on her keychain, some pepper spray, a taser, or a handgun that she's been trained to use. For some reason making it personal and showing the possible importance that her defense be sound seems to have a pretty good track record. I think most people believe rape happens just off a crowded street in a back alley and a whistle will bring people running to help or a quick kick to the shin and she can run into the arms of a policeman just around the corner. When you can make them understand that sometimes a person is really on their own....it clicks, at least once in a while.
Gun License for Domestic Violence Victims 'Dangerous,' Group Says
- Thread starter SJG26
- Start date
- Status
Vitamin G
Member
Wow...
Pittsburgh (Allegheny County) took me 20 minutes from recieving the application, to getting my picture taken, to having my card printed and walking out the door!
Pittsburgh (Allegheny County) took me 20 minutes from recieving the application, to getting my picture taken, to having my card printed and walking out the door!
JJE
Member
CA wins for once!
Believe it or not, in CA you AUTOMATICALLY can carry a concealed firearm if you have been granted a restraining order. No application, no picture, no fingerprints (still limited to 10 round mags, tho):
12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety.
Section 12025 of the CA penal code prohibits concealed carry for non-CCW, non-LEO, etc. Hmmm, it's probably easier to get a restraining order in my county than a CCW.
Believe it or not, in CA you AUTOMATICALLY can carry a concealed firearm if you have been granted a restraining order. No application, no picture, no fingerprints (still limited to 10 round mags, tho):
12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety.
Section 12025 of the CA penal code prohibits concealed carry for non-CCW, non-LEO, etc. Hmmm, it's probably easier to get a restraining order in my county than a CCW.
Last edited:
Pilgrim
Member
It is. I listened to one woman admit she lied in her affidavit in support of a TRO because the domestic violence community action people said the lie would make it more likely she would get her TRO.
Pilgrim
A restraining order is not the same as a personal protection order.
PPO's aren't "just given" out, despite what you might hear. Occasionally, a temporary one is issued, but the accused has the right to a hearing where it can be removed fairly quickly.
You shouldn't need a permit at all to carry a firearm as long as you aren't a felon convicted of a violent crime, in which case you shouldn't be walking around the streets anyway.
If there is going to be a law like this created, its ridiculous to limit it to women in domestic violence situations. Any person who reasonably believes they could be in danger should be allowed to carry while waiting for the red tape to clear.
PPO's aren't "just given" out, despite what you might hear. Occasionally, a temporary one is issued, but the accused has the right to a hearing where it can be removed fairly quickly.
You shouldn't need a permit at all to carry a firearm as long as you aren't a felon convicted of a violent crime, in which case you shouldn't be walking around the streets anyway.
If there is going to be a law like this created, its ridiculous to limit it to women in domestic violence situations. Any person who reasonably believes they could be in danger should be allowed to carry while waiting for the red tape to clear.
Hypnogator
Member
You're preaching to the choir again, Barbara!
Devils advocate here
I think this would need to be thought out pretty well to be properly, and safely implemented.
Years ago (I know some thing have changed now) my ex-wife told some ridiculous lies about abuse (she'd been "coached" by who knows who, because a couple of her friends HAD been abused---they told her she would do "better" if she claimed abuse). So she accused me of abuse, and I was banned from my home and children briefly. Not sure if there was officially a TRO or not, but I don't recall one. Had my day in court (which pretty much killed the credibility of her lies---Neighbors said they had never even heard shouting, no police reports or medical reports for physical abuse--and the only person that the neighbors evers saw taking care of the kids was me). They STILL did took all my guns away (temporarily).
Now because of her sudden erratic behavior, and all the nonsense she tried to pull, I put a wiretape on phone (legal, as the phone was in my name.)-- recorded ON TAPE her trying to find someone to kill me.
Now, I've since known (and dated a couple) women who had been truly abused, and I would be all for them having a gun. But, had they issued my ex a gun, based on the flimsy accusations she made---I probably wouldn't be here writing this.
I'M NOT DISPARAGING any women that have been in a truly abusive situation. In fact I consider these abusers to be about the lowest of the low. But, the unfortunate side effect of more aggressive enforcement of abuse, is that the persons(usually women, but not always) are generally believed, with little or no proof.
P.S. My kids were young when all this went down--They eventually saw through their mothers deceptions and complicity. They've now lived with me for several years.
I think this would need to be thought out pretty well to be properly, and safely implemented.
Years ago (I know some thing have changed now) my ex-wife told some ridiculous lies about abuse (she'd been "coached" by who knows who, because a couple of her friends HAD been abused---they told her she would do "better" if she claimed abuse). So she accused me of abuse, and I was banned from my home and children briefly. Not sure if there was officially a TRO or not, but I don't recall one. Had my day in court (which pretty much killed the credibility of her lies---Neighbors said they had never even heard shouting, no police reports or medical reports for physical abuse--and the only person that the neighbors evers saw taking care of the kids was me). They STILL did took all my guns away (temporarily).
Now because of her sudden erratic behavior, and all the nonsense she tried to pull, I put a wiretape on phone (legal, as the phone was in my name.)-- recorded ON TAPE her trying to find someone to kill me.
Now, I've since known (and dated a couple) women who had been truly abused, and I would be all for them having a gun. But, had they issued my ex a gun, based on the flimsy accusations she made---I probably wouldn't be here writing this.
I'M NOT DISPARAGING any women that have been in a truly abusive situation. In fact I consider these abusers to be about the lowest of the low. But, the unfortunate side effect of more aggressive enforcement of abuse, is that the persons(usually women, but not always) are generally believed, with little or no proof.
P.S. My kids were young when all this went down--They eventually saw through their mothers deceptions and complicity. They've now lived with me for several years.
Rumble
Member
In PA specifically, there really are no conditions--no training is required, no signoffs, recommendations/references. You fill out a form saying you're not a felon, not crazy, and not on the hook for domestic violence, and that's pretty much it. It took me 3 days, which was mostly mail transit time. Took my wife 25 minutes and one ugly photograph.
Far as I'm concerned, it would be difficult to expedite the process more around here. Now, different counties are different.
As far as a general case, I would support expedited processing for victims, precisely so they don't have to be victims again. If the state has a training requirement, then put them in a class immediately, run a NICS check, and give them their permit. Yes, there is the chance of frivolous complaints being made. Hopefully, these could be winnowed out.
EDIT: I said, originally, that frivolous DV complaints were the price paid to play the game, but that was glib and insensitive to the previous poster (I didn't actually read the post, just jumped in to reply), and I apologize. I simply mean that baseless accusations will no doubt be made, and it shouldn't be a reason not to establish an expedited process for people who are truly in danger.
Far as I'm concerned, it would be difficult to expedite the process more around here. Now, different counties are different.
As far as a general case, I would support expedited processing for victims, precisely so they don't have to be victims again. If the state has a training requirement, then put them in a class immediately, run a NICS check, and give them their permit. Yes, there is the chance of frivolous complaints being made. Hopefully, these could be winnowed out.
EDIT: I said, originally, that frivolous DV complaints were the price paid to play the game, but that was glib and insensitive to the previous poster (I didn't actually read the post, just jumped in to reply), and I apologize. I simply mean that baseless accusations will no doubt be made, and it shouldn't be a reason not to establish an expedited process for people who are truly in danger.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked