NationStates Jolt Archive

Hurry. Before this link expires, click on

http://************/7kstn

Or, you can search the website, www.sfgate.com, for the article by Joan Ryan, dated January 8, 2006, entitled "A Woman, A Batterer, and A Gun" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/08/BAGPDGKAG41.DTL&type=printable)

The lady was convicted of unlawfully possessing a concealed firearm -- when she thought she had a legitimate right to carry, based upon the restraining order against her stalker and based upon California's complicated gun laws.

Bad news -- unbeknownst to her, the restraining order had expired. So -- she gets jailed, she loses any right to possess a gun at all for any reasons, and she has lost her anonymity so her stalker can find her.

Thanks a bunch, California "gun control" supporters.

Read the whole story in the _San Francisco Chronicle_.
You'll learn how "reasonable gun control" schemes work directly against female victims of stalkers.

This poor woman lives in constant fear, now even more because the State of California has disarmed her.

Next time one of your anti-self defense friends pipes up about how great "gun control" is, you'll have this story from San Francisco, the capital of "gun control" in the western states.

The "gun control" advocates actually want this kind of result to occur -- the disarming of women against predators. They must want this result, because their policies actually cause the result by their very design.

The woman has no recourse. Read our book, _Dial 911 and Die_, and you'll see how American citizens generally have no right to demand police protection.

We're on our own ... and too often our governments make sure we must live in fear of crime without defense tools.

Thanks a bunch, California "gun control" supporters.

This poor woman lives in constant fear, now even more because the State of California has disarmed her.

The "gun control" advocates actually want this kind of result to occur -- the disarming of women against predators. They must want this result, because their policies actually cause the result by their very design.

We're on our own ... and too often our governments make sure we must live in fear of crime without defense tools.
This comes as no surprise to me whatsoever. It's just one more reason to avoid even visiting the Land of Fruits and Nuts. I thank God every day of my life for deciding to make North Carolina my home, where people still understand that the police are not a panacea for violence and that there are going to be times when you have to be able to defend yourself or your family.

In NC, this woman would have a great chance in a jury trial, especially if they decided to go the "Jury nullification" route.

San Francisco has always been one of the funnest citys to stumble around in for myself, but this is bullshit. I've stopped going since they enacted that stupid bill against firearms. If cops have guns, citizens dont, citizens protest, cops get off on beating them.... :mp5: (yes, I know people hate it, but it fits)

I hate gun control, but believe some states need it.

Speaking from experience, this is typical. A protective order in combination with an unarmed woman is a recipe for violence.

Police are under no obligation to provide protection, even if the woman calls 911. Police rarely arrive in time, and magistrates are reticent at best to enforce them.

The Supreme Court even ruled that if a protective order REQUIRES the police to respond on demand, they have no obligation to do so.

Women who file for protective orders raise their odds of being killed by an order of magnitude, because the ex sees this as an affront and a challenge.

Women who are known to be armed are left alone. Go figure.

I like the bit at the end:

"The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal."

Translation:"So the police can't/won't stop it but I'm opposed to the woman trying to protect herself even though I have no idea how to stop it myself."

I E-mailed the author asking her WHY it doesn't make sense as the "Justice System" is the one making her a victim. Wonder what her response will be.

She could move to Virginia, for starters. She can be armed and safer in Virginia.

She could move to Virginia, for starters. She can be armed and safer in Virginia.
Or some remote island where the stalker can't find her and she won't need a gun.

Or some remote island where the stalker can't find her and she won't need a gun.
Well, I have several hundred women who've been through my training now, who would argue with you. They're safe, and have been safe for a couple of years now, especially compared to unarmed women.

Sometimes one or two people have to suffer in the pursuit of order. Sure its unfair and all that but the law is made for the good of many, one person is sad but unavoidable.

Well, I have several hundred women who've been through my training now, who would argue with you. They're safe, and have been safe for a couple of years now, especially compared to unarmed women.

You're wrong DK. It's obvious that it's better to disarm her and make her information public to keep her safe.

Sometimes one or two people have to suffer in the pursuit of order. Sure its unfair and all that but the law is made for the good of many, one person is sad but unavoidable.
It's not one person.

There are a lot of victims of domestic violence. Far more than are killed or wounded in, say, the Iraq War.

Sometimes one or two people have to suffer in the pursuit of order. Sure its unfair and all that but the law is made for the good of many, one person is sad but unavoidable.

What "order" are we talking about? How is disarming women in danger of being attacked "good for the many"?

Sometimes one or two people have to suffer in the pursuit of order. Sure its unfair and all that but the law is made for the good of many, one person is sad but unavoidable.
This is the opposite end of the spectrum from the "individual uber alles" crowd. A plague on both your houses!

...and magistrates are reticent at best to enforce them.

Maybe in youir state, but not in mine(Michigan).

I've seen a guy violate a protective order and ago to jail for 20 days for having a 2 hour phone conversation with his ex-wife...on valentinces day. A conversation that SHE instigated and that consisted purely of discussions about re-uniting. No threats, no coercion. At the sentencing the judge made it clear. "When I said no contact, I meant no contact".

This is reaction by judges/magistrates is not unusul in this area.

Maybe in youir state, but not in mine(Michigan).

I've seen a guy violate a protective order and ago to jail for 20 days for having a 2 hour phone conversation with his ex-wife...on valentinces day. A conversation that SHE instigated and that consisted purely of discussions about re-uniting. No threats, no coercion. At the sentencing the judge made it clear. "When I said no contact, I meant no contact".

This is reaction by judges/magistrates is not unusul in this area.

It's unusual in most states. Which is why more women are killed, wounded, stalked, harassed, and abused after they leave their husbands and boyfriends every year - when compared to the drop in the bucket of casualties we currently experience in Iraq.