The Governor’s Office has been promoting a couple of bills which seek to take all firearms from anyone who has a protective order issued against them. The first bill (HB-302) seeks to give the judge power to take someone’s firearms at what can be an ex-parte hearing (where only one party is present) even when there is no indication any threat to use a firearm has been made. The bills require no nexus between the firearm and threats of domestic violence.
The second bill (HB-296) would make it mandatory, rather than discretionary, for a final protective order to order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent’s possession, and to refrain from the possession of any firearm during the duration of the order.
Those who are Second Amendment supporters consider these bills to be nothing more than a gun grab. There was no testimony given to the committee indicating that judges in Maryland were not issuing orders to remove firearms when it was appropriate to do so. Nor, was there testimony to indicate that judges were not issuing orders to remove firearms and then respondents were using said firearms to commit acts of domestic violence. There was no evidence presented that those committing domestic violence with firearms were holders of ”permits to carry” (i.e. those who had gone through the rigorous review before being granted a State Right to Carry Permit.)
Those proposing the bill argue that the time after issuance of a domestic order is the most dangerous time for victims of domestic violence. What the bill does not address is that a person intent on doing harm does not need or necessarily use a firearm when committing domestic violence. Victims are attacked with knives, fists, cars and flammable liquids, amongst many other weapons. The proponents of the bills argue, you must err on the side of protecting the spouse from being a potential victim of a firearm injury.
It was halfway through the bill hearing when it became clearly evident that the protection of woman was a secondary concern to the advocates of these bills and that in fact these bills were nothing more than an emotional cover for an effort to grab up as many guns as possible. The State Police came in and requested a “carve out” for police. A “carve out” means that the bill would not apply to the ”carved out” group.
First, one must understand the State Police do not come in and ask to amend the Governor’s bill unless the Governor has agreed to the amendment. I asked the Officer and others testifying to explain why the spouses of law enforcement personnel were less worthy of protection than all the rest of the spouses of domestic violence abusers in the State?The argument was that “Officers could lose their jobs” if unable to have their guns. I pointed out that many others face serious repercutions such as the lose of a security clearance or professional license. If the Administration was serious about protecting the victims, it would be protecting them all and not saying the victims of police officers who commit domestic violence are not worthy of those protections the Administration claims are necessary for all others.
Second Amendment advocates argue that if the Administration was serious about protecting victims of domestic violence they would allow them to be issued permits to carry, so they could protect themselves. Holding up a court order and telling a potential abuser to stop his attack and go away does not have the same effect as the attacker knowing the potential victim has the means to protect him or herself.
After the hearing, a witness asked me if I could step out in the hall to speak to him about the concerns I had raised. After we had spoken I was approached by one of the witnesses who had been a victim of domestic violence. She told me she agreed there should not be any carve out but also stated I could not really understand what the victims of domestic violence go through. I explained, she should not assume I did not know about domestic violence because when I was 10 years old I witnessed my mother’s abuse at the hands of her then boyfriend. One morning, I heard my mother screaming upstairs and ran up to my little brother’s room to find a man she had been dating was holding her down on a bed with one hand around her throat while he punched her in the face with his fist of the other hand. As she screamed I ran downstairs to grab a butcher knife to help my mother. I ran back up the stairs and back into the bedroom where I stood about two feet behind the man who was choking and beating my mother. I had planned to stab him in the back and to save my mother’s life because I was sure she was going to die. I did nothing. I froze. I was afraid he would take the knife and stab me or my mother. I felt like a coward, I had the means to save my mother, her nose was broke, her eyes were blackened and her face was full of blood. I, her eldest son, had the means but not the courage to stop her attacker. I dropped the knife, kicked it under the bed, so he could not get it and screamed for him to stop. He eventually stopped and he was out of our life shortly thereafter.
I understand domestic violence, all too well. I just happen to think that the Administration’s plans to take the guns from every respondent to a domestic order is not the answer. My mother’s abuser had a handgun, a snub nose .38, but he did not use it. I had a butcher knife and did not use it. He used his fists and I used my voice.
We need to leave judges with the discretion necessary to make decisions related to domestic violence cases. We need to be consistent in how we treat the victims of domestic violence. Currently that is not the case. The State Police tell the victims of domestic violence who receive protective orders the orders are not indicative of being under any threat that would necessitate their being given a permit to carry in order to protect themselves.
State police special order number 29-07-004, states “ Temporary Restraining Orders/ Peace Orders are not sufficient documentation in of itself to establish apprehended fear” Yet, the Governor’s position is that a woman who receives a protective order is under such a threat, that all guns should be removed from the respondent’s possession.
Again the actions of the State are in sharp contrast to the stated position of the Governor. How is it possible that the issuance of a domestic violence order is so serious as to trigger the automatic seizure of the alleged abuser’s firearms but the issuance of a domestic order is not serious enough to justify giving the victim a good and substantial need to obtain a permit to carry a firearm so as to protect themselves and their children from a violation of said protective order?
