U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is making a public push for new legislation that would prohibit anyone with a temporary restraining order from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition.
The bill was introduced earlier this year, but the Democrat senator is speaking out now, even though he admits it probably won't get far in the current session.
“Domestic violence should be a bipartisan issue,” Blumenthal said. “There should be no red or blue about protecting women.”
Courts often issue emergency and temporary restraining orders without the accused present, making the bill likely to draw criticism from Second Amendment groups.
Domestic violence should be a bipartisan issue, just like support for the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and our due process. And protecting victims of domestic violence and protecting the constitutional rights of those accused of abuse aren't mutually exclusive goals.
The Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act would amend federal law to prohibit individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence court orders from possessing or receiving firearms, including people whose orders were issued in an ex parte hearing without the accused being present to defend themselves or challenge the allegations.
Current federal law generally requires that a person subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order have received notice and an opportunity to participate in a hearing before losing their Second Amendment rights under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8).
Blumenthal's legislation would change that.
Under his proposal, an ex parte order could trigger the federal firearms prohibition before the accused has an opportunity to appear in court, provided that notice and an opportunity to be heard follow within the time required by state, tribal, or territorial law, and within a "reasonable period" sufficient to protect due-process rights.
What's a reasonable period? Who knows. The legislation doesn't establish a specific nationwide deadline, which seems like a big problem to me.
Remember, we're not necessarily talking about someone who's been convicted of a crime, or even someone who's been formally charged with one. We're talking about someone who's been accused of threatening or abusive behavior and is subject to a court order issued before they've had the chance to tell their side of the story.
There is a legitimate argument for allowing judges to take emergency action when someone faces an imminent threat. Domestic violence victims can be in extraordinary danger, particularly when they're attempting to leave an abusive relationship. But that doesn't mean due process should be treated as an inconvenience.
Blumenthal's bill also includes a federal grant program encouraging states, tribes, and local governments to adopt procedures requiring the surrender or removal of firearms and ammunition from individuals subject to qualifying protective orders. Under those procedures, an individual would have just 24 hours after being served to surrender firearms and ammunition, or law enforcement would request surrender and remove them. Firearm licenses and permits would also be revoked for the duration of the order.
There's a real question about how this proposal fits with the Supreme Court's decision in Rahimi.
In that case, the Court upheld the federal prohibition on firearm possession by individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders. But Rahimi had received notice and an opportunity to participate in a hearing before the order was issued. The justices didn't decide if the same constitutional analysis would apply to an ex parte order, but that's exactly what Blumenthal's bill would do.
Here's another concern. Courts will often issue mutual restraining orders against both parties. Under Blumenthal's bill, a victim of domestic violence may be unable to purchase a firearm when she most desperately needs one. An abuser who's had their guns and ammo taken away can still get ahold of a knife, or even use their fists and feet to brutally assault their victim. And there's a fairly good chance that the victim won't be physically strong enough to go toe-to-toe with her abuser, which is where a firearm for self-defense becomes necessary.
Blumenthal says there should be no red or blue when it comes to protecting women from domestic violence. I agree that protecting victims shouldn't be a partisan issue. Neither should due process. And we should be sure that any measure meant to protect the victims of domestic violence doesn't end up putting them at risk.
I have grave constitutional concerns about suspending someone's Second Amendment rights before they've had their day in court, and we've already seen how Domestic Violence Restraining Orders are being abused to confiscate lawfully owned firearms even when there are no allegations of physical violence. Protecting the victims of domestic violence is extremely important. So is protecting our constitutional rights from government overreach, but that doesn't seem to be much of a concern at all for Blumenthal.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member