Grieving mom battles to save others' children

Lucy Nash's son Evan was shot dead by his father in broad daylight in the San Diego, CA suburb of Ocean Beach almost nine months ago.

She had gotten a restraining order requiring Bill Hoffine, the father, to stay 100 yards away from her. The standards temporary RO prohibits the restrainee from possessing any firearms, but in the words of San Diego City Attorney Casey Guinn, "There is no mechanism or system in place to actually confiscate weapons".

Hoffine's weapons, including the handgun he used to murder his son, were all legally owned. His handguns were registered. Lucy Nash knew about them, the judge who issued the RO knew about them, the police officer who served the order on Hoffine knew about them, but nobody did anything about it.

Now Lucy Nash is working to change state law to require people who are the subject of an RO to actually turn in their weapons. That's a measure I can support without hesitation. The federal prohibition on people who have been named as defendant on a domestic violence-related RO has passed a test of constitutionality in the US Supreme Court. It's the law, and it should be consistently applied and enforced.

See http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040516/news_1m16mom.html for the copyrighted news article.

Then worry about everyone else.

... and hell -- if they don't turn them in and they kill somebody, SEND 'EM TO JAIL. Just add that "didn't turn in his guns when ordered to" charge to the murder charge. That should be an excellent deterrent to murders.

I guess first you could make 'em pay for the funerals of the people they kill, eh? That should shut their grieving mothers up.

"... in the words of San Diego City Attorney Casey Guinn, 'There is no mechanism or system in place to actually confiscate weapons'."

And oddly enough, THERE STILL WON'T BE any such mechanism if this dandy new law is passed (requiring subjects of restraining orders to turn in their weapons). What kind of naive moron thinks that someone in that situation is going to voluntarily surrender firearms??

The only conceivable such "mechanism" is a FIREARMS REGISTRY.

The thing that records which of those law-abiding, honest citizens who suddenly turn nasty have firearms handy with which to cause harm, so that they can be confiscated. (And, in case anyone's wondering, so that if they are not made available for confiscation, the owner can be charged with failing to comply with the order and detained, and also prosecuted for unlawfully disposing of the firearms if s/he claims to no longer be in possession of them.)

.

.

This article doesn't mention it, but the fact that Bill Hoffine's handguns were legally owned and registered was printed in the same newspaper shortly after the shooting occurred. All handguns legally acquired in California since 1968 are registered with the state's Department of Justice.

See http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/index.html for information on California's strict gun control laws.

The state's registry didn't make any difference. Lucy Nash knew about the weapons and told the judge and the police all about them. In the article she is quoted as saying she would have relocated herself and Evan if she had known Hoffine had not been disarmed. She had a reasonable (IMO) expectation that the system would have taken care of the gun problem.

Gun registries that don't get used for their most obvious purpose seem kind of pointless.

Kind of puts a kink in that argument...

... and hell -- if they don't turn them in and they kill somebody, SEND 'EM TO JAIL.

The proposed law would create a mechanism that would physically force the restrainee to turn his or her firearms over to police, or prove that he or she has sold them legally.

The only conceivable such "mechanism" is a FIREARMS REGISTRY.

We already have one in California for the type of firearms most apt to be used in crimes: Handguns, like the one used to murder Evan Nash last year. The only piece missing from the puzzle is the part where armed law enforcement officers go to the defendant's house with a list of registered guns and demand that the defendant hand them over.

What kind of naive moron thinks that someone in that situation is going to voluntarily surrender firearms??

That's the naive assumption of CURRENT LAW, iverglas, and history has shown again and again that it's ineffective. I've posted several anecdotes about the problem and a San Diego Union-Tribune editorial to back up what I've been saying. That's why Lucy Nash is fighting to change the law.

:dunce:

It's funny how pro-RKBA people get insulted and screamed at on this board even when we're advocating reasonable common-sense gun safety measures to help save the children.

:freak:

It's funny how pro-RKBA people get insulted and screamed at on this board even when we're advocating reasonable common-sense gun safety measures to help save the children.

????

We are the side that presents compromises and proposals to help reduce gun crime. The anti-gunners place more blame on the guns than on the societal factors that drive people to use them.

The whole Us vs. Them tone of these discussions is a real damn shame.

Hoffine's weapons, including the handgun he used to murder his son, were all legally owned. His handguns were registered.

Now how's about somebodies else read the article before issuing instructions in that regard? Look there: not only did I read it - I can quote it.

Handguns are required to be registered in California. Other firearms are not; would that be correct?

In Canada, where handguns are extremely scarce among "honest, law-abiding citizens", the household longarms have an unfortunate tendency to be used in family homicides.

The particular firearm in issue in this particular case was registered. Another firearm, or the same firearm in another state, would not have been.

And my my, these reasonable compromises. Am I really hearing the reasonable compromisers here saying that they advocate mandatory registration of handgun ownership? I'd be surprised ... but I'd still be saying that the measure is inadequate.

.

The article concerns a tragic crime that occurred in California because of a deficiency in California law; a "loophole" that California resident Lucy Nash and the San Diego, California City Attorney are working with the California legislature to correct. A crime that even a hard-core RKBA advocate like me acknowledges could have been avoided through effective use of existing California law which includes a comprehensive handgun registry that is available to all law enforcement people through their computer systems right now.

If you want to move the goalposts to include other kinds of weapons and other places, please start your own thread.

for not turning firearme over when served a TRO.

Good law.

Too many women have been killed here in Colorado in the past few years by exes and estranged husbands with restraining orders against them. They need teeth in them.

...across the highway?

That happened on I-70, west of Denver - near Golden. I live in Pueblo West, about 100 miles south of Denver and 40 miles south of Colorado Springs.

Breaking the law. The nerve.

I think the dang criminal in this case was actually an "honest, law-abiding citizen".

Else ... how would he have legally acquired that handgun he legally acquired??

Dang honest, law-abiding citizens. Breaking the law like that. And confusing some people all to hell, apparently.

.

So therefore, he was a criminal for having one. The point of the thread is that the system designed to keep violent criminals disarmed broke down in this case.

The point of the thread is that the system designed to keep violent criminals disarmed broke down in this case.

And now did you want to answer my question? The one about whether you support mandatory registration of firearms so that when law-abiding honest citizens with firearms break down, there *IS* a system to keep them disarmed?

.

n/t

n/t

.

Such a registration wouldn't apply to illegal guns on the black market, which is where criminals get them.

If criminals aren't allowed to own guns, they won't subject themselves to the registration...they'll go to the untraceable black market.

Such a registration wouldn't apply to illegal guns on the black market, which is where criminals get them.

Perhaps I could just remind you of your words in your immediately preceding post:

The point of the thread is that the system designed to keep violent criminals disarmed broke down in this case.

As far as I can tell, "criminals" and "illegal guns on the black market" don't have thing one to do with this thread, which seems to be about the use of legally owned firearms by the honest, law-abiding citizens who legally acquired them.

Sir; wake up, sir -- do you know where you are? Can you tell us what day it is?

.

The restraining order stated that the man could not own a gun. But there was no follow-up done to ensure that he never acquired one.

I'd much rather have authoritarian gun confiscation from people with known violent histories than from society at large.

The restraining order stated that the man could not own a gun.
But there was no follow-up done to ensure that he never acquired one.

And without mandatory registration of firearms ownership (and sure -- a lot more attention to enforcing laws against illegal transfers), I'm not at all sure how any such "follow-up" could have been done. In fact, I don't have a clue how.

"Knock knock." "Who's there?" "The people to do the follow-up to ensure that you haven't acquired a firearm in contravention of the restraining order against you." "Nope, I haven't!" "Alrighty then."

Did you have something else in mind? Maybe a little of that (authoritarian) unreasonable searching of the dwelling, to catch anybody stupid enough to keep the firearms acquired in contravention of a restraining order in his/her closet?

Oh, I know! I know! Criminals will always get guns, no matter what anybody does! So ... I'm still trying to figure out what the point of anything you're proposing actually is. Sounds like a big old waste of time and money to me. Doesn't it to you?

.

Therefore he was not an honest, law-abiding citizen.

-- if he "was not an honest, law-abiding citizen".

When was the magical moment when he ceased to be an "honest, law-abiding citizen"?

Do let's remember that it is NOT a violation of the law to PLAN a crime all by one's self. Someone who is polishing up a firearm in the back shed, and planning to use it next morning to wipe out his/her family, IS LAW-ABIDING. Restraining orders may be issued against people who have not broken a law, and this pretty clearly demonstrates that this pointless "law-abiding" rhetoric has no place in the discussion anyway.

And WHAT PROVISION IS THERE for dealing with people like him, when their intention does become known, IF THERE IS NO RECORD of the firearms they acquired when they were supposedly "honest" and "law-abiding"?

Yes, the only situation in which women and children are ever shot by their partners and parents are when a restraining order has been issued requiring that the firearms already known to be in the possession of the subject of the order be relinquished.

No, there have never ever been cases in which restraining orders were issued against people who had firearms of which no one had any knowledge or record.

No, if this particular individual had handed over the firearms in his possession of which there was a record, he wouldn't have had any of those other firearms of which there was no record. And he certainly would not have used them to shoot a family member.


If he had complied with the order to the extent of handing over the registered firearms, and, say, any other firearm of which there was good evidence that he was in possession, there would have been nothing anyone could have done about any other firearms he secretly had.

If there is NO RECORD of someone having a particular firearm or firearms, it is NOT POSSIBLE to charge/detain him/her for failing to comply with an order to relinquish them.

And that leaves him/her on the loose with firearms and people whom there are grounds to believe s/he will use them against.

This really seems pretty simple, to me.

.

Restraining orders may be issued against people who have not broken a law, and this pretty clearly demonstrates that this pointless "law-abiding" rhetoric has no place in the discussion anyway.

If the "law-abiding" rhetoric is pointless then why did you bring it up in my nice clean pro-gun-control thread?

:dunce:

When was the magical moment when he ceased to be an "honest, law-abiding citizen"?

When he decided not to comply with the requirements of the restraining order Lucy Nash obtained. At that moment he became a criminal.

And WHAT PROVISION IS THERE for dealing with people like him, when their intention does become known, IF THERE IS NO RECORD of the firearms they acquired when they were supposedly "honest" and "law-abiding"?

Red Herring. Bill Hoffine's guns were known to the state of California, to Lucy Nash, and the police.

If he had complied with the order to the extent of handing over the registered firearms, and, say, any other firearm of which there was good evidence that he was in possession, there would have been nothing anyone could have done about any other firearms he secretly had.

You're right, no gun registry will ever be of any use against unregistered guns. In California we already HAVE a gun registry, so we don't need to spend billions of dollars creating one. We're just not using it effectively yet.

There isn't going to be a federal gun registry for all firearms in the USA any time soon. Congress has already stretched the Interstate Commerce Clause to the point where the 9th District circuit court of appeals has published dicta finding one part of the National Firearms Act unconstitutional.

When was the magical moment when he ceased to be an "honest, law-abiding citizen"?
When he decided not to comply with the requirements of the restraining order Lucy Nash obtained. At that moment he became a criminal.

I mean, unless you're making up your own definitions.

As I quite clearly and irrefutably asserted, a person who has "decided" to do *anything*, no matter how illegal it be, IS "law-abiding", and IS NOT "a criminal", unless and until s/he does it or attempts to do it.

This really is the little bit of gum in your works, and what you've said simply shows that you can't get it out.

A "law-abiding" person who has firearms and decides to break the law has the most effective, efficient and risk-free means with which to do that. And without knowledge of (a) that intent (which will remain the sometimes undetectable gum in the works of *any* plan, obviously) and (b) that access to the means to carry it out, there won't be anything anyone can do to interfere.


And WHAT PROVISION IS THERE for dealing with people like him, when their intention does become known, IF THERE IS NO RECORD of the firearms they acquired when they were supposedly "honest" and "law-abiding"?
Red Herring. Bill Hoffine's guns were known to the state of California, to Lucy Nash, and the police.

Yup. And the only problem that needs solving is the problem of individuals living in the state of California, who have registered handguns, against whom restraining orders are issued.

All the other terrorized, and injured and dead, spouses and children of law-abiding gun owners are just fish.


You're right, no gun registry will ever be of any use against unregistered guns. In California we already HAVE a gun registry, so we don't need to spend billions of dollars creating one. We're just not using it effectively yet.

"Effectively" -- that would be by requiring that all ownership of all firearms be registered, and then ensuring that this information is used for the purpose (one of the purposes) for which it is intended when the occasion arises?

If the registry covers only handguns, and if the registered handguns in the possession of individuals subject to restraining orders are removed ... well, that will be "using <the registry> effectively" I suppose. It just wouldn't actually be effectively protecting potential victims of assault or homicide.

But then, that wouldn't be its purpose, right? Its purpose would be to make it possible to remove registered handguns that are in the possession of individuals subject to restraining orders.

Set your sights low enough, and any job becomes easy.



There isn't going to be a federal gun registry for all firearms in the USA any time soon. Congress has already stretched the Interstate Commerce Clause to the point where the 9th District circuit court of appeals has published dicta finding one part of the National Firearms Act unconstitutional.

One more reason for the US to shake off those 18th century cobwebs and join the rest of the world in the 21st century, eh?

.

with the catechism definition for mortal sin...

As George Carlin once explained it, "If you planned to take the bus downtown and commit adultery, you can save the carfare; you've committed a mortal sin just by thinking about it."

I dont know all the specifics of restraining orders, I've never had one or asked for one before but a quick google search turned up this page.

http://www.larcc.org/pamphlets/children_family/get_restraining_order.htm

IMO this kind of thing could lead to some abuse. You could have a person lie and make up some sort of story in order to legally have another person disarmed.

You cant go around and punish people by revoking thier rights without having some sort of trial, which is what this would do. It would take away the person's second amendment right without a trial and without a conviction.

Now if the husband is abusive, then perhaps the wife shouldnt settle for merely getting a restraining order, they need to actually press charges so it can go to court.

In California anyone can get a TRO against an estranged spouse, lover, roommate, relative, or friend for no charge and without having to provide much in the way of evidence that the person presents a danger.

A TRO typically expires in 30 days, at which point a formal hearing is held to determine A) whether a permanent RO is justified and desired, and B) what specific provisions the RO should have.

IMO this kind of thing could lead to some abuse. You could have a person lie and make up some sort of story in order to legally have another person disarmed.

You are correct, and significant portion of the TROs issued in California are sought for capricious reasons including revenge for the other party getting a TRO.

The system has safeguards to prevent people from being permanently deprived of their civil rights. It's not perfect, but we're dealing with human conflicts, always steeped with strong emotions and no two situations exactly alike.

You cant go around and punish people by revoking thier rights without having some sort of trial, which is what this would do. It would take away the person's second amendment right without a trial and without a conviction.

First, you might want to investigate the difference between an ex parte restraining order and a restraining order. From the site you cite:

The court clerk will then take the papers to a judge who will decide whether you should get an ex parte restraining order.

Sometimes the judge may want to ask you questions about the abuse before making a decision. This questioning would usually happen on the same day that you ask for the restraining order.

The judge may decide that there is not enough evidence to show that you are in immediate danger, and, therefore, will not sign an ex parte restraining order. However, you may still be able to get a restraining order after a hearing when your partner is present. The process is the same as for an ex parte restraining order except that you will not have any restraining order between the time you ask a judge for a restraining order and the day of the hearing (which is held within 14 days). ... If you believe that you are still in danger, you may want to talk to a lawyer or to your local domestic violence program.

Yes, it would indeed be a shame if someone had his/her firearms taken away for up to 2 weeks without having an opportunity to be heard. Almost as much of a shame as if s/he used them to kill someone else after getting notice of the application, during the 2 weeks that the someone else was waiting for a hearing on the application.


Now if the husband is abusive, then perhaps the wife shouldnt settle for merely getting a restraining order, they need to actually press charges so it can go to court.

Mm hmm. And whether or not the individual is abusive (i.e., as I assume you are using the expression, has committed assaults), if s/he has made threats of (further) violence, it actually works the other way around.

A trial on criminal charge(s) may not be held for months. The protection is needed immediately.

And where a credible basis for the allegation of the need for protection is found, well, some people just think that it justifies taking away someone's toys for a couple of weeks.


IMO this kind of thing could lead to some abuse. You could have a person lie and make up some sort of story in order to legally have another person disarmed.

Uh, yeah. For some reason known only to him/herself, I guess.

Since there is a hearing held at which the person who could be subject to the restraining order is entitled to be represented, call evidence and make submissions, your objection isn't really any more relevant than it would be if it were made against the trial process itself. Courts assess the credibility of witnesses every minute of the day. It's their job.

.

Yeah, it's worth having a few thousand people shot a year as long as no innocent "enthusiast" loses a gun.

I keep flashing to that Daily Show bit about that idiotic gun law proposed in Arizona and the comedian asking with a poker face, "Is there anything more terrifying than a room full of people without guns?"