General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., March 28, 2013
Seven, count ’em, seven amendments have already been prefiled for HB 35(Longhurst), the criminal background checks bill. And these are only the so-called friendly amendments. In the immortal words of Casey Stengel while managing the inept New York Mets in their inaugural season:
“Can’t anybody here play this game?”
This bill should be the easy one. They’ve got the votes, no fuss, no muss. But, by paying undue deference to the NRA, they have become the Senate (United States version) Democrats, turning what should be defining statement victories into, at best, marginal progress and, at worst, defeat. The issue is larger than HB 35. The House dithering has emboldened the NRA b/c they’ve learned that they can run circles around the house managers of this legislation. That will make passage of other key elements of the gun control package far more difficult than it needed to be.
Need I remind these Profiles In Courage that a massacre of school children in Connecticut was the catalyzing event for this package? After several other massacres all over this country? This kind of appeasement will only help to ensure that such a massacre occurs here. Maybe then they’ll stop listening to these uncompromising zealots. Until then, we have HB 35, on today’s House Agenda. Do us all a favor, and at least pass this one?
As far as yesterday’s session, outside of the committee meetings, nothing happened. Other than non-substantive resolutions. And, the re-creation of the Blue Collar Jobs Task Force.
Today’s Senate Agenda features the Jack Markell tax/revenue package, which features a tax cut for Delaware’s wealthiest citizens in the form of HB 50(Longhurst). I’m sure I must have missed it, but can anybody point me to the Governor’s explanation as to why the Upper Crust needs more bread taken directly out of state services to people less fortunate than themselves? Bordeaux futures up again? Offshore accounts being squeezed by the IRS? Or do all those cop cars protecting Greenville’s ‘finest’ just make Jack nervous? People need to remember this if/when Markell tries to peddle himself elsewhere as a Democrat.
I really don’t know what else the House will do other than HB 35 which, I assume, they will want to get out of their hair before the Easter Break. There are other bills on the agenda, some worthy, like HB 20(Jaques), and at least one that may be worthy…of admission into Klown Kollege. From Delaware’s most law-abiding, and now, most patriotic, legislator, we have HB 44(Atkins), which ‘permits a real property owner or tenant to display an American flag on a pole attached to the exterior of the property’s structure or on a flagpole located within the property’s boundaries, provided the flagpole does not exceed 25 feet in height and conforms to all setback requirements. Any and all community restrictions to the contrary will not be enforceable.’
Now, I don’t know what precipitated this bill, other than it wasn’t a massacre of school kids in Connecticut. Probably a disagreement between a couple of Sussex’ finest, perhaps an effete snob who moved here from say, DC, or, worse, SF, and an upstanding patriot with a shed full of military grade weaponry. But I know that Atkins is trying to solve this ‘problem’ with a metaphoric AK-47 where a fly swatter might do. Which is what I love about the guy. As his reelection prospects continue to dwindle, we can look forward to his ‘patriotic’ index rising precipitously. Coming soon (I kid you not): His Constitutional Amendment to Protect Farming and Ranching In Delaware Unto Perpetuity.
John, if this is to be your final term in office, please stick around ’til the end. There is nobody like you, and I don’t want you to do anything…unfortunate. Remember, stay away from those lingerie parties, don’t burn any tires, don’t write any ill-considered memos, don’t speed, and don’t drive while intoxicated. Oh, and you might want to stay away from the prison for awhile…unless you become a ward of the state. Happy Easter!
Your Amigo,
El Somnambulo
(BTW, to those of you in the know, can anybody tell me who the bleep this William F. Christy guy is? I thought that every nutcase in Delaware already vented over here. I. Was. Wrong.)
Tags: El Somnambulo, Jack Markell tax cuts for the rich, Steve Tanzer Delaware
Nothing in HB35 addresses the safety and protection of school children. CT has some of the tightest gun control laws in the nation. Lanza violated no less than 5 of those gun laws. NOTHING in the proposed laws will prevent criminals from getting guns, it’s as easy as traveling to Wilmington where the gun crime issue is not the whole state of Delaware. The state can’t even be bothered to control gun dealers who are violating Delaware Code by overcharging 2 – 3 1/2 times over what is allowed for background checks. If the legislature would introduce a real bill that specifically addresses the safety and protection of children in schools I’d be right there promoting it.
I commented in another thread about the impending ammendments to this FFL requirement. There may be more by the time it gets to the floor. I will re assert my conviction to the thought that if we are going to have a mandatory FFL background check, for which there will be a fee charged, it should apply to everyone with zero exceptions.
Over at DP it was suggested that current and prior military personel should also be exempted?? If that is the case why not the dog catcher, pta members, postal cariers, students who are on the deans list?
Right, Ray. Approximately 40% of Delaware gun sales take place w/o a background check. In too many cases, we have learned in hindsight that guns were sold to persons who otherwise would not have passed the background check. They committed crimes with those weapons, which is how we found out.
If we could have stopped those crimes from happening by keeping them from getting those weapons, the safety of Delaware citizens, including children, would have been improved.
Seriously, I’m tired of arguing with the circular logic of gun proponents. It’s not logic, it’s spoon-fed propaganda.
Exempting current and former military personnel REALLY makes a lot of sense. After all, can anyone cite EVEN ONE INSTANCE of anyone currently or formerly in the military going on a killing spree and/or killing themselves?
I mean, besides EVERY SINGLE DAY?
NOTHING in the proposed laws will prevent criminals from getting guns, it’s as easy as traveling to Wilmington where the gun crime issue is not the whole state of Delaware.
I’m sick of this argument. I’ve still never spoken to anyone in Delaware who knows an illegal arms dealer. Delaware doesn’t need illegal arms dealers because all a criminal has to do is pick up a copy of the Guide or go on Craigslist to buy a gun with no background check.
This bill WILL make it harder or impossible for a criminal to buy a gun.
And I’m with El Som, don’t exempt the military, don’t exempt anyone.
I agree. That basic gun nut argument (nothing is going to work, so we shouldn’t try anything) is complete BS.
El your claim is not true and there is no evidence to support your claim since there is no gun registration in Delaware. In 2011, there were 16,740 transactions processed through FTAP. Of those transactions processed, 542 purchases were denied as a result of the background checks conducted. Of those 542 denials 85% were overturned after further checks and the persons denied were allowed to complete the transaction.
Criminals committing crimes with guns aren’t purchasing them from responsible gun owners they are getting them from other criminals on the street corner for an 8 ball of coke, or they’re breaking into homes stealing them. Most of the guns can be traced back to Virginia, New York has already proven that 2,200 guns seized from criminals originated form sales in Virginia.
No ones arguing, there’s a difference between propaganda and facts. facts show there isn’t a gun crime problem in Delaware. Violent crime in Delaware involves less than .050% with guns.
I did not say don’t try anything, but trying to make laws that have been proven not to work is a waste of time. The Gun Free School Zone Act including a 1,000′ perimeter has been federal law for 23 years. Produce one case where a person who has brought a gun on school property has been prosecuted in Delaware or under the federal law. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS.
Laws that the NRA has allowed to pass so far should be held up as what people who are looking for in sensible gun control are interested in.
Maybe you are not an egregious offender, but the “…nothing is going to work, so we shouldn’t try anything” has been ubiquitous here.
BULLSHIT Craigslist specifically prohibits sales of firearms on their site. Guns sold in the guide are usually for sale by responsible gun owners, and most of the ads already state a FFL check will be required. Of course you don’t know any illegal gun dealers because your not a criminal. Illegal gun sales go hand in hand with drug dealing, and other crime found in the inner cities. I’m sick of the rhetoric that responsible gun owners will sell a gun to just anyone, that’s bullshit. It’s already a federal crime to sell a gun to someone who may be suspected of being banned from purchasing a gun.
The battle over the checks is over, it was never really a fight, just a quibble over the details. so now that we are down to the details, lets keep any exemption to a bare minimum. As far as law enforcement goes, we will never win that fight, but given the track record od alot of local pd’s maybe it should stop with DSP, and not apply to the Barney Fifes.
Start enforcing the laws that are on the books if the AG doesn’t have the balls to do it then defer the crime to the federal courts, since most are federal crimes also.
Criminals also get guns from straw purchasers NOT buying from gunshops and it is easier to clamp down on that if there are background checks.
And I’m sick of the argument that the laws won’t stop the criminals too. Criminals are violating the law by freaking definition. The laws exist so that you can draw the line between the law-abiding and the criminals and impose some justice. Speed limits are the law and people (me) exceed them all of the time. The limit isn’t a deterrence, it just tells me where I’m liable to be in trouble. Although I’d love to see one of the “gun laws don’t work” crowd fight a speeding ticket on the grounds that “speed laws don’t work”.
“This bill WILL make it harder or impossible for a criminal to buy a gun.”
State and Federal statistics compiled by law enforcement including the FBI report last year prove that there is little to no effect on illegal gun sales with tighter gun control laws.
The government claimed the war on drugs would prevent dope addicts from getting drugs. One question how’s that workin for us?
Actually, speed laws don’t work if the goal is 100% safety. Some people speed, some people die.
Now….what is the percentage of speed-related accidents to vehicles in circulation or net society miles drive? What is the percentage of gun-related incidents to firearms in circulation?
I don’t know it, but I would want to know it if that argument was being made on either side.
And there it is… “…nothing is going to work, so we shouldn’t try anything”
It is always close at hand.
Do you know what a straw purchase is? If you do then you know it is already a federal law if someone knowingly purchases a gun for someone disqualified from owning a gun.
The only way to catch straw purchasers and thus enforce the law, is to catch the criminal with the gun and have the means to determine who originally bought the weapon and be able to trace the chain of custody to the criminal. Until we are able to make the connection between the point of sale and the criminal we have insufficient means with which to enforce the law.
If ensuring the means to make that connection means that we need universal registration, then so be it. I would accept the faint possibility of the government of going door to door to round up 300,000,000 firearms (as utterly silly and incomprehensible as that sounds) in order to avoid the tryanny of the those who tout the 2nd Amendment as a freedom without obligation. Freedom isn’t free and if background checks and registration is a necessary condition of that freedom then that’s our obligation as a society and nation.
The true patriots are those who recognize their obligation to their fellow citizens as a member of society. Not the ones who insist on the right to their freedoms with no obligations in spite of the cost to their fellow citizens.
and since we are able to track every gun sold, that law is extremely effective….. wait….
State and Federal statistics compiled by law enforcement including the FBI report last year prove that there is little to no effect on illegal gun sales with tighter gun control laws.
Right now, it’s NOT an “illegal gun sale” if a criminal buys his gun from an ad. Buying from an ad is different than sending your girlfriend in to buy a gun for you.
My point is that with current laws, criminals have a lot of LEGAL ways to buy a gun without a background check. That’s why no one can tell me their story about an illegal arms dealer in Delaware.
Are we able to track the owner of every gun sold? I honestly was not aware that was possible. I thought you could do it at the point of sale with a licenced dealer, but after that I also thought private sales/transfers were not possible.
Not being a “gun enthusiast,” I have to admit I’m not aware of all the ins and outs.
Every single law is obeyed only by “law-abiding” people. It’s a tautology, like 1=1. To say we don’t need a law because people will break it is merely to acknowledge that laws punish people after the fact and do little to stop criminal behavior.
anon of course it is illegal under the state and federal law for someone disqualified from purchasing a gun doing so.
The following persons are prohibited from purchasing or possessing any firearm:
Convicted felons.
Those convicted of a crime of violence involving bodily injury to another, including misdemeanors, but the prohibition shall not apply after five years from the date of conviction for misdemeanors.
Those convicted of an offense involving a narcotic, dangerous drug, or controlled substance.
Those who have ever been committed to a mental institution, sanitarium or hospital for mental disorder and do not possess a certificate of rehabilitation.
Children under 16 years of age, unless under the direct supervision of an adult.
A person adjudicated as delinquent for conduct which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a felony, unless and until that person has reached age 25.
It is a felony to knowingly give or sell a firearm to a person prohibited from possessing a firearm.
It is a felony to purchase a firearm on behalf of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm, or to purchase with the intent to transfer, give, or sell a firearm to a person prohibited from possessing it.
Knowingly has been brought up repeatedly as a loophole. If I haven’t known someone for at least 10 years I wouldn’t sell them a gun PERIOD unless they were willing to do a background check. No responsible gun owner would because it’s on them of the person commits a crime with the gun.
Well SB 37 got introduced yesterday and low and behold it calls for gun registration/ proof of ownership to be handled by DSP. The speaker of the house ammended SB 35 to include no registration moveing forward. I wonder what his position is on the language on SB 37 calling for registration?
One of the reasons for the tepid ‘victory’ on HB 35 is the ineptitude of House leadership in general, and Rep. Longhurst in particular.
She wasn’t the lead sponsor of the bill because she was the most ardent champion of the bill, but b/c she is the House Majority Leader and, as a result, responsible for floor-managing the package that was prepared by the Governor and the AG. Her ‘performance’ on HB 35 demonstrates that she is incapable of carrying out that role effectively.
You will remember that she was stuffed down the throats of the Caucus by Speaker Pete, who made clear that either he and Longhurst went in as a team, or not at all. I don’t think you will find a single D legislator who believes that Longhurst is anywhere close to being the most effective floor manager of ANYthing, much less going one-on-one with the NRA. Hence, the something like 10 amendments to the bill, a watered-down result which, as I predicted, STILL didn’t make the NRA happy.
And, Waterpirate, you’re right. Her ineptitude now places other legislation at risk. Seriously, that was one disastrous decision by that caucus.
This is the big game, the real fight. SB 37. In my opinion the language is so ill defined and vague in some areas, and so specific in others. OMG! That weapon has a protruding second hand grip?? WTF?
This bill is going to galvanise and subsequently tear the state apart. Here is the news, it will not go down party lines, but rather geographic ones. The 2 lower counties have a much different take on things than New Castle. The letter behind a persons name on a voter role will not effect the way they vote or pressure their ellected officials. Alot of Dems are going to be called to the carpet for supporting this bill south of the canal. Any R’s that would support this bill as written will be crucified. Buckle up it is going to be a long and bumpy ride with its fair share of victims along the way.
The 5% of voters who are pissed off over gun control didn’t vote D last time, so I don’t think the majority of Dems have anything to fear from these gun extremists not voting D next time.
The majority where? When the language and intent of SB 37 reaches the law abiding people who did not care about any form of back ground ceck because they are law abiding find out that the pistol they have now has to: prove ownership to DSP….. that jury is still out.
Ok. Reality check here
DSP could manage sex offender registration
DSP could not manage sending data to the Feds as required
HoW exactly is DSP going to manage registration and ownership? Good folks trying to do a job, but in the past ineffective management has screwed it up
Lets hope that doesn’t happen again with this…..
Whoops. That should be NOT before the manage
The DSP can’t even manage to make sure gun shops aren’t overcharging the current maximum fee allowed for backgound checks which is $20.00.
Kent and Sussex Counties don’t have a gun crime problem Wilmington/NCCo does.
I don’t think gun shops overcharging is a DSP ISSUE
But hey, aren’t you conservatives all about the government NOT regulating things,
Until, of course, something like this happens, then you all scream HELP! WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT,
tough to have it both ways huh?
Why do I have to register my dog and no one has a problem with that, but requiring registration of a lethal weapon and people have a fit?
Or a boat. Or a plane. Or a trailer or a car.
All those have to be registered- even an animal to be used at stud.
But what? Does a gun have GOD status or something?
The holy and sacred gun? Oh no no no. Can’t register that’
Dogs, boats, planes, trailers, or cars are not guarenteed in the Constitution.
Neither is a militia , or the arms needed to create one
Without being WELL- REGULATED
but “you people” yup you….. Tend to overlook those two words everytime
The constitution get quoted
Sadly for you, other people have read the constitution as well.
From the Senate Judiciary Hearing in Dover as reported in the Cape Gazette:
Sussex County resident John Laprad said he owns about 50 guns, and his wife and son have guns in the same home. “I don’t know which guns are missing from my house. I don’t have a list,” he said. “I don’t want to be made a criminal.”
“I don’t inventory my guns,” said Greenwood resident Matt Opaliski.”
This is the problem. These people own deadly weapons and they not only don’t know where those guns are, they don’t actually care. And these are responsible gun owners? And hey, let’s not even address why there would a need or desire to have that many guns.
This cavalier attitude won’t be fixed by the current bill, the penalty is much too low, but it’s a start. Thank God these people don’t run a day care where they would be responsible for knowing where all the children are.
I really would like to know what their definition of “responsible gun ownership” is. It sure is different than mine because I know exactly where my golf clubs are and how many I have, but then I am a golf enthusiast not a golf nut.
On further reflection, I am also thankful that neither John nor Matt have responsibility for our nuclear stockpile.
If DSP goes into a gun shop and sees a sign that has a fee that is higher than what is allowed by law of course it’s their responsibility. Everything with you has to have a tag line “you conservatives”. It’s people like you that make impossible to get issues resolved in a bipartisan manner, you’re to wrapped up in putting labels on people. To bad for you people a lot of us people read SCOTUS rulings related to WELL-REGULATED you should as well, maybe you people would learn something. However I doubt you will because you people steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any ideas that are not in line with yours. You people scream accept us our way of thinking but then when us people ask for the same thing you people say “if you feel froggy leap”. Matt Opaliski IS a responsible gun owner, WHO is under no law requiring him to keep an inventory list of his guns. Does he know what he has, I’m sure he does just as the majority of responsible gun owners do, the bottom line it’s nobodies business. How many of you advertise what or how many valuables you have in your homes? No one does because they don’t want to be broken into. Criminals don’t care who’s home it is, they’ve broken into police officers homes and stolen their guns. It amazes me how you people think gun owners should have to justify how many guns they own. Interesting how you consider yourself a golf enthusiast with many deadly weapons in a bag, and you know exactly where they are but someone with a gun is a nut.
Yo, Bansidhe/Ray, pick one monicker and stick to it. Them’s the rules.
First and last warning.
I’ve read the rules I don’t see where it says one name but fine. I’ve also read the rules that do specifically address other issues that are totally ignored, because the commenter is in the good ol boy club, whatever just sayin’ rules should apply to everyone not be selectively chosen to single out people who offer differing views.
Who is asking him to justify anything or announce how many guns he has? He is the one that made the statement that he doesn’t “inventory” his guns. Which means he couldn’t report the loss of a deadly weapon, because he wouldn’t even know if one was missing.
Matt Opaliski said “I don’t inventory my guns,”
You said “Does he know what he has, I’m sure he does just as the majority of responsible gun owners do,”
If you can’t see the disconnect between those two statements, there is little point in trying to have a discussion. As I said, I am thankful he is not responsible for our nuclear stockpile. Can you imagine him testifying “Well, I don’t inventory our nukes” Sheesh!
Dave so now all your opinions of someone are based on the fact that they won’t disclose what they have for guns, christ you even made a reference to children implying a person who refuses to disclose information about their guns is an irresponsible caregiver of children.
Dave I could make the same statement “I don’t inventory my guns” it doesn’t mean that I do or don’t, anymore than it means Matt does or doesn’t. If he does have an inventory it means he’s untruthful, of he doesn’t which I find hard to believe he’s no more irresponsible than anyone else who doesn’t keep an inventory of any valuables they have deadly or otherwise.
@Bansidhe/Ray — if you have issues with the rules you can go someplace where the rules are more to your liking. We’ll be happy to help you with that choice if you are having a tough time making it.
What he most likely means is that while he knows what and how many guns he has he doesn’t take an inventory of them on a regular basis so he may not know one was stolen/missing/lost until either a crime is committed with it or he happens take notice. Either way I believe the law says that the owner has to report it stolen within 48 hours of noticing it is missing. Problem solved!
I don’t have an issue with your rules, and I have no problem following them as some of the other comment makers do quite obviously. I merely expressed my opinion regarding the manner in which the rules are used selectively.
“he’s no more irresponsible than anyone else who doesn’t keep an inventory of any valuables they have deadly or otherwise.”
As you pointed it is irresponsible, even if no more irresponsible than someone else. So, now that we are in agreement, the discussion can be concluded with a final note.
When someone doesn’t inventory their grandmothers diamond brooch which has been in the family for several hundred years and it gets stolen, no one dies. I wish so-called responsible gun owners had a higher standard that they lived up to than “anyone else”
We are talking current not former military persons because they are constantly background checked. No El, I can’t think of any incidents in Delaware or any in the nation in the past year or decade where a current military person went a shooting spree in the U. S. except for the crazy Major and he was on a base waging war for Allah not a threat to civilians. He would have passed the background check just fine, which is my point. Why make people who are already clear pay to do it again?
If military people want to trade a weapon, there is no reason to demand they go to a firearms dealer to do it. The results will be the same, you are just making money off of them for not reason.
Interestingly, enough military persons are less likely to engage in violence against themselves or others than their demographic.
Why do you target them with snark and disrespect?
Ummmmmm David. I think you need to know that the background checks are not just for
Crimes
There could be mental health issues the military doesn’t know about
As well as domestic violence issues off base. Not all cases are reported to the base commanders
And sadly many soldiers are committing suicide on and off base. As well as DV crimes.
In nearly all cases of domestic violence were the victim was killed- the victim was stalked first. It is a precursor to killing. That is why folks with a PFA against them MUST turn in their weapons.
And why a DV offender is a prohibited person
The military knows about all mental health issues. Soldiers are committing suicide because they are being kept on the front lines longer than ever before. The troops have been getting backdoor drafted for over 5 years instead of being rotated out. MP respond to DV cases even if off base, if the person is active duty.
I know of a PFA case right now involving a neighbors child. The person who has the PFA against them has not turned in their weapons. When the victim and the victims father reported it to the police they told them it’s not their responsibility. Unless the person is convicted of domestic violence their weapons are only taken away for the duration of the temporary PFA. They are NOT disqualified from owning or possessing firearms under federal or state law.
When a PFA is granted, ex parte, there needs to be a hearing within 30 days.
Then the PFA may then be extended for a year or dropped, but while the PFA is in effect the respondent may not possess firearms. it is that simple.
If you know of a case and you also know the police have not responded to the abuser possessing firearms, you can make a complaint about it either to the Criminal Justice Council, the Council of Police Chiefs, or the DomesticViolence Council.
There is no such thing as a conviction for Domestic Violence, as there is no crime of Domestic Violence,, the crime is either stalking, assault, endangerment or some other specific crime related to the overall pattern of abuse in domestic violence cases.
And, in special cases and circumstances a PFA can be issued for a lifetime.
Whether the PFA is temporary, valid for a year OR forever, the respondent is a person PROHIBITED under state law from having in their possession any firearms.
So, vet those applicants carefully, and ensure while they don’t have a criminal record, they don’t have an outstanding PFA either. Just some free advise. 🙂
What do Orders of Protection usually say?
Orders of Protection from Abuse may provide for any or all of the following relief:
No more abuse
No contact with the Petitioner
Petitioner may be given exclusive use of the home or of certain possessions
Temporary custody
Conditions of Visitation
Child support or support for the Petitioner
Payment of expenses
Surrender of firearms
Counseling
Any other relief that might help prevent future violence
How long does an Order of Protection From Abuse usually last?
Order of Protection generally can last up to one year and can be extended for an extra six months following another hearing. Depending on the facts of a case, the no contact and no abuse provisions can last up to two (2) years or permanently. (To request an extension, you must file a motion.)
The Order remains valid and effective even if the petitioner and respondent get back together. The Order can only be changed after another hearing.
The effectiveness of a PFA Order depends on the fact that the petitioner will not attempt to contact the respondent or attempt to reconcile without asking the Court to change or set aside the Order.
http://courts.delaware.gov/Help/PFA/
I’m well aware of what the law is concerning PFA’s and possession of firearms. PFA’s can be issued immediately by the responding officer/officers and in those cases all weapons should be seized by law enforcement.
I was speaking of federal laws regarding domestic violence under the Brady Handgun Violence Act (not limited to handguns despite the title of the act)
Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
Fugitives from justice
Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
Illegal Aliens
Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition
Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
Delaware Code defines “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” as the occurrence of one or more of the following acts of “abuse” between family or household members:
causing or attempting to cause actual physical injury or sexual offenses
placing or attempting to place a person in fear of physical injury or sexual offense
damaging, destroying, or taking property
trespassing
child abuse
kidnapping
unlawful imprisonment
interference with custody
causing fear or emotional distress
any other conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening or harmful
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice these articles cover domestic violence:
Sec. 917. Art. 117. Provoking speeches or gestures
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful
words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall
be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 72.
Sec. 920. Art. 120. Rape and carnal knowledge
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual
intercourse, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall
be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may
direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not
amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a person–
(1) who is not that person’s spouse; and
(2) who has not attained the age of sixteen years;
is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial
may direct.
(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of
these offenses.
(d)(1) In a prosecution under subsection (b), it is an affirmative
defense that–
(A) the person with whom the accused committed the act of sexual
intercourse had at the time of the alleged offense attained the age
of twelve years; and
(B) the accused reasonably believed that that person had at the
time of the alleged offense attained the age of sixteen years.
(2) The accused has the burden of proving a defense under paragraph
(1) by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 73; Pub. L. 102-484, div. A, title
X, Sec. 1066(c), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2506; Pub. L. 104-106, div. A,
title XI, Sec. 1113, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 462.)
Section 5
Sec. 924. Art. 124. Maiming
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to injure,
disfigure, or disable, inflicts upon the person of another an injury
which–
(1) seriously disfigures his person by any mutilation thereof;
(2) destroys or disables any member or organ of his body; or
(3) seriously diminishes his physical vigor by the injury of any
member or organ;
is guilty of maiming and shall be punished as a court-martial may
direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 74.)
Sec. 928. Art. 128. Assault
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts or offers with
unlawful force or violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether
or not the attempt or offer is consummated, is guilty of assault and
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) commits an assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or
force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; or
(2) commits an assault and intentionally inflicts grievous
bodily harm with or without a weapon;
is guilty of aggravated assault and shall be punished as a court-martial
may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 75.
Sec. 934. Art. 134. General article
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and
neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed
forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed
forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 76.)
SMH……..
No PFA has ever been issued by a responding police officer- ever. It would violate what is known as due process were that to happen, which it would not. A PFA is an order of the court,
Only a judge in Family Court can issue a PFA, ex parte or otherwise. And only a judge can extend the temporary one if one is issued. After due notice and only After a hearing in family court.
Don’t believe me , look it up. I provided the link to the help page on PFAs .
That is state law. And no PFA respondent may posses firearms while the PFA is effect. The police may enforce a PFA after one is issued or the victim may choose to report the violation to the Family Court.
You clearly do not have a grasp of state law. And I only bring it up because you mentioned it:
” they are NOT disqualified from owning or possessing firearms under federal or state law”
You are, as always , entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
ENUFF SAID
I don’t need to look it up all cruisers are equipped with computers. A responding officer who has reason to believe an act of domestic violence has occurred can contact a justice while on the scene. The justice can and in most cases will grant an emergency PFA immediately, based on the information provided by the victim and the responding officer/officers.
I CLEARLY STATED no respondent may possess any WEAPONS for the duration of a PFA order. It’s not just limited to firearms either.
You obviously pick and choose what you want. What I stated was if a person is NOT convicted of domestic abuse their firearms must be returned once the PFA order is no longer in effect. That’s not my “opinion” it is FACT right from federal and state statutes. In Delaware a person convicted of a domestic abuse crime may also petition to have their record expunged which will allow them to purchase and possess firearms.
SIGH- like I said cops don’t issue PFAs only judges do. There is no family court judge on call 24 /7 only JP Magistrates, who cannot issue a family court document, but can issue a no contact order . Different animals entirely. The two courts do not overlap in any way, ever.
A cop can only charge someone with a crime. And part of that paperwork is a CRIMINAL NO CONTACT ORDER.
It may or may not be domestic related.
a PFA is not a conviction of anything, a PFA is a family court decision and may be ordered either with or without a finding of abuse. The criminal act if there is one is seperatedly Persued in criminal court. One can get a PFA without ever calling the cops OR going to criminal court.
The PFA paperwork makes no references to weapons as anything may be used as a weapon but it does specifically mention FIREARMS.
But hey, believe what you want
Lingerie parties? Did I miss a recent news story? I’m curious what transpired….
Not recent. I think the original story had to do with ‘gifts’ that legislators get from lobbyists, probably in the aftermath of the Tigani shenanigans.
Atkins mentioned that he had attended a lingerie party (totally soft-core) sponsored by, if I recall, one of the beer manufacturers. He brought it up voluntarily and argued that such events would in no way sway how he votes.
I’ll see if I can dig up the original story…
BTW, I’m sure NOTHING out of the ordinary took place. I mean, when one mixes booze, horny legislators, and scantily-clad lingerie models…what could POSSIBLY happen? Other than just some good old-fashioned lobbying.
From a July 2011 News-Journal story by Maureen Milford and Jeff Montgomery about L’Affaire Tigani, we come upon Delaware’s Most Law-Abiding Citizen. I cannot make this stuff up:
“Legislators contend there is no connection between the gifts Tigani gave them and their votes.
The response of Rep. John C. Atkins, D-Millsboro, is typical. He attended a private Maxim Exposure party in Dewey Beach sponsored by Maxim magazine and Anheuser-Busch, whose products are sold in Delaware exclusively by N.K.S. The invitation-only party featured all you could eat and drink as well as women gyrating in cages under cascading water and staging pillow fights on a bed.
Atkins said such petty things would never sway him.
“Big deal,” Atkins said. “Who cares?”