Gun Rights

Let's Keep Guns Away from Possible Domestic Abuse Victims: The Latest in Memorial Legislation

|

Don't worry, abuse victims! You have easy alternatives to firearms!

Meet "Christy's Law," the latest effort to turn a terrible tragedy into terrible legislation. Via The Orange County Register:

The husband of Seal Beach hair salon shooting victim Christy Wilson is trying to find a state legislator to introduce a bill in Sacramento that would temporarily take guns away from anyone involved in a heated divorce or child custody battle.

Christy and seven others were killed at Meritage Salon last October in the worst massacre in Orange County history. The ex-husband of a hair stylist at the salon is charged in the killings.

Paul Wilson is gathering signatures through an online petition to introduce a law in California that would require both parties in a divorce or custody battle give up any weapons they own during the proceedings and prohibit them from purchasing any new ones.

How, exactly, the government would have the legal authority to require such a surrender is not clear, which might be why nobody in the state legislature has thrown their weight behind the proposal as yet. It's California, though; that the law is a blatant violation of the Second and Fourth Amendments might not be considered a barrier. It's also relatively new, having garnered only 898 of the 25,000 signatures they're looking for as of Monday morning.

That the law is a terribly bad and dangerous idea should be apparent to anybody interested in unintended consequences. I'm assuming, at least, it is not Paul Wilson's intent that spouses trying to escape out of abusive relationships should be unable to defend themselves against a partner who might try to kill them precisely because they're trying to get out of said abusive relationship.

Though whether people who could be affected by this law grasp the concept of self-defense could be brought into question. One woman who signed the virtual petition added this note: "I have sole legal and physical custody of my son, a restraining order, have had my husband's gun confiscated yet I don't feel safe." Perhaps this law would make her feel safe, though it wouldn't actually make her any safer.

Scott Dekraal, the alleged mass murderer in the Seal Beach shooting, had 10 firearms taken from him by police on two separate prior occasions, The Register reports. But in each case they were returned. This is treated as a failure of the system by Paul Wilson's attorney, Michael Balmer. As usual, there's nothing in the proposed law that would prevent somebody from wanting to do harm from obtaining firearms illegally. There is, however, an exception for law enforcement!

Speaking of Paul Wilson's attorney, The Register's story doesn't get into the other half of the proposed law, which would make it easier to pursue a civil trial against a defendant in a criminal case while the criminal case is still ongoing. Paul Wilson has filed a wrongful death civil suit against Dekraal, which Dekraal wants to stay until the criminal case is concluded. Christy's Law would also require any defendant seeking a stay of a civil case while their criminal case is ongoing to declare their wealth and could potentially require defendants to post a bond equal to their declared wealth. It would also allow for a protective order in the civil case to prevent the defendant's testimony from being used in a concurrent criminal case, avoiding any potential Fifth Amendment violations that could be used to justify a stay.

The justification for this change is described in Paul Wilson's petition:

Mr. Wilson is aware that he is in a unique position; typically civil cases against criminal defendants are unfruitful due to their indigence.  However, in situations such as the instant case, were the defendant has sufficient assets (Dekraai is estimated to have over $500,000.00 in assets plus thousands paid to him monthly from an annuity), defendants should not be afforded the time and opportunity of a stay to squander or hide assets during the pendency of the criminal matter. Such legislation would protect victims from being re-victimized by defendants in the civil arena.

Hat tip to Sloopyinca for passing along the link.

Below: Kennedy talks with Washington Times senior editor Emily Miller about women and gun ownership for Reason.tv.

NEXT: E.J. Dionne: Three Cheers for Big Government!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How, exactly, the government would have the legal authority to require such a surrender is not clear,

    Oh, I know this one!

    Because fuck you, that’s why.

    Amirite?

    1. Those years at law school weren’t wasted, were they, RC?

      1. In Con Law, they spend most of the course teaching you about the limits on government action. Then, at the end, they tell you that most government actions aren’t really limited. The most stark example is Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where you go from the federal government not having any general police power to it being able to do pretty much anything.

  2. Perhaps this law would make her feel safe, though it wouldn’t actually make her any safer.

    Does anything else matter? Intentions trump results, you know.

    1. More importantly, feelings trump logic.

      1. Also, Trump trumps logic.

        1. Trump doesn’t feel logic. He might want to feel her, though.

    1. Yep, Christie’s Law needs to be expanded to include cans of gas, kitchen knives, golf clubs, running with scissors, and sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads. Why does Paul Wilson hate the innocent victims of messy divorces?

      1. Also cars. Disgruntled spouses love to run over the ones they are angry with. That would make this Green Legislation, surely Californians can get behind that.

        1. There was that House episode when he drove a car into Cuddy’s house. House vs. house.

          1. House won.

              1. He also literally cheated death in the finale.

                1. “SHUT UP YOU IDIOT”

                  1. I wasn’t too keen on the last season, but I thought the end was okay.

        2. One day, greens are going to realize they really just need to be the party of “pro death” and embrace genocide, any measures that help people kill people, ban medicine, and when they’re the only people left, sign a suicide pact and go all Jamestown. Then, the green mission will be full filled.

          1. I don’t know about that but I watched the DVD extras on BBC’s Planet Earth series the other day, and the scientists they interviewed generally agreed that human population should be capped at 3 billion people, though they didn’t get into specifics on how to get us messy planet-spoilers down to that number.

            1. I’m surprised radical greens aren’t huge space travel fans. Then they could ship everyone off without having to resort to wholesale murder.

              1. Ala Golgafrincham?

              2. And allow the human infestation to spread!? They regard themselves as the Gaia’s maid service. Like a cross between Ra’s al Ghul and the Orkin Man.

              3. I know a couple of conservationists who hold exactly this view. They’re not apparent because they’re not the screechy zero growth types. It’s a very interesting subset. They are big fans of SpaceX.

          2. and when they’re the only people left, sign a suicide pact and go all Jamestown

            You mean get killed by Indians and eventually abandon the place?

            I think you meant they mean to go Johnstown, buidling their city beneath a dam that’s going to burst. 🙂

            1. Crap… Jonestown is what I meant. Not that Jamestown had a much better ending!

        3. Apparently, a Mercedes works quite well for that based on local evidence.

          But backing over the spouse is considered bad form.

          1. I was living down there when that happened. What ever happened to that crazy broad? She did in front of their daughter. She was a legitimate monster. The media was almost giddy about it. It was really pretty sick.

            1. She got 20 years, comes up for parole next year. I think they pled some form of reduced capacity as a defense.

              Texas being Texas, she might have gotten away with it if she had just hit him the one time and drove off. When the video footage and the coroner said she hit him ‘multiple times’, she was through.

              1. The parking on his head after backing up was rough. But interesting, as killing your spouse and/or their lover if you discover them en flagrante delecto is one of the examples of justifiable homicide spelled out in Texas law, she was probably close enough that you’re right. Driving away would’ve gotten her off.

                1. The problem is that she didn’t kill the g/f she killed him. And that justification seems to only work for women. Had the sexes been reversed the sentence would have certainly been life and might have been death. And that is bullshit. We have this idea in this society that it is somehow not as bad when a woman kills her husband or kids than it is when a man does it.

                  1. You didn’t read the whole thing, John. Killing your lover if caught in the act is also covered as justifiable homicide. However, it does stipulate that it has to be at your house. Going somewhere else probably makes it a crime of passion, but using a car is interesting because there was no proof of intent like taking a gun to the hotel would have been.

                  2. I don’t know about now, John, but historically, the reverse seems to have been the case. I remember this post from Volokh ages ago because it seemed so crazy.

                    1. Yes historically that is true Nicole. But it is not true now. If you are a women and want to kill your husband children, chances are pretty good you will not be convicted of murder for it and will serve much less time than you would had you been a man. That is if you serve any time at all.

              2. “Your Honor, my client is pure evil, leaving her with a reduced capacity for moral behavior.”

          2. Apparently, a Mercedes works quite well for that based on local evidence.

            I’m convinced Mrs. Dean’s car wouldn’t settle for just running over me. It probably has some kind of oven in it for disposing of human remains. Those Germans think of everything.

            1. A chiminia. It is the Texas way.

  3. So if you’re getting divorced, you’re guilty…of something. Or something like that. Awesome.

    1. Would that mean no guns for any stressful occasion? Like, I dunno, a recession?

      1. course not. the wingnuts will continue to grab aholtof gunz n bibles

      2. Don’t be silly, ProL. We’re not in a recession. The private sector is doing fine. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. You will take me to Jabba now. You serve your master well.

        1. Well, it could become a recession at any time. Really, a recession is always a possibility, as is a decline in the stock market. Or we could go to war or be attacked by terrorists.

          Maybe life is too stressful all of the time to allow people any rights at all.

          1. You seem to be getting agitated, ProL. I think you need to have your rights restricted. For your own good.

  4. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:”

    1. Somehow I missed the “unless the State feels like it” tacked on to the end of “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment.

  5. OT:

    But after the previous thread, my cock is still soft. Does anybody know if there exists late 1970s-era photos of Madonna’s hairy, wop asshole?

    Thanks.

    1. like that hairy ol grandma stuff huh?

    2. Why would I share my stash with you?

  6. In 1991 a mad man drove his pickup through the front of a Luby’s cafateria in Killeen Texas and then proceeded to shoot 43 people killing 23 of them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby‘s_massacre

    Please join my movement to make it unlawful for anyone who owns a pickup truck to own a weapon.

    1. The killer, George Hennard was also a merchant seaman. Please also join my movement to keep guns out of the hands of sailors.

    2. nah cause teh rael problem is cafeterias

    3. In 2007 a madman shot and killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus. Please join my movement to make it unlawful for Koreans to own weapons.

      1. Why not declare the campus a Gun Free Zone?

        I mean, if you make it illegal to carry guns on the campus, then no one will be able to shoot and kill anyone because they won’t have a gun, right?

    4. We should certainly ban assault pickup trucks – you know, the ones with gun racks.

      1. But technicals are still ok, right?

        1. A gun rack with a pistol grip? I should think not!

      2. Please help me to pass the new federal legislation, Max’s Law, which would outlaw automobile-mounted miniguns.

  7. More technically, since most of the firearms in the house have been acquired post-marriage, and I live in a community property state, who gets the guns after the divorce is final? I presume this has to be negotiated in the divorce along with everything else.

    Practically speaking, I get the pick of them since my wife doesn’t know precisely what’s in that closet.

    1. just use em as offset for the fufu crap all over the house which u dont want anyway

    2. I would suggest that you make sure you get the Conway Twitty 1991.

      1. 1911. I’m a typing retard.

      2. Of course someone as tasteless as you would pass up the beautiful Steve McQueen 1911.

        1. Only two philistines like you two would not take the Edward G. Robinson.

          http://www.americaremembers.co…..GROBTP.asp

        2. Dude. CONWAY TWITTY. You go to the range and get to say “I’m gonna shoot my Conway Twitty.”

          1. The PATTON. I mean, come on, America’s most quotable General, ever.

          2. Wait, there’s no CHUCK HESTON?

            1. Did you check rifles?

              1. I didn’t check anything. I just assumed that the highest level of celebrity firearm would have to be the HESTON.

    3. who gets the guns after the divorce is final?

      The police department.

  8. I’m naming my Glock “Christy’s Law”.

    Cause if she, or anyone else in that hair salon had been carrying…

    1. ..then many more innocent people would have died in the cross fire!
      We all know that the only people competent to use guns are trained employees of the government!
      All we need is more laws and more armed agents of the state to enforce them!
      /liberal retard

      1. So noted. I’m passing around a petition to force all hair salons to hire armed, off-duty police officers in case one of these evil divorcees doesn’t turn in his or her weapons and tries to start sumthin’.

  9. I feel bad for that guy’s loss, but instead of signing his petition, sign mine that would stop this insanity before it starts.

    Seriously. People use shock value to get all kinds of idiocy passed. Make sure the rights of the people are protected and possibly save the life of the next victim that had her guns taken away from her so she could be murdered by an ex- that was able to get an illegal gun while she decided to obey the law and give up her right to self defense.

    1. The flip side is that if California had conceal and carry, maybe she or someone else could have shot the bastard before he could do much damage. Sad that the first thought is “what can the government do to stop this?” instead of “why the hell can’t people defend themselves?”.

      1. Defend themselves?! No, no, no, if people without the proper training start defending themselves then too many dogs will go unshot.

    2. Or at least Like it on Facebook so your friends can see it and sign it.

    3. Yeah, those hair salons are magnets for CCW holders.

      1. Hang out in Texas much?

  10. There is, however, an exception for law enforcement!

    Well duh, because if there is any class of citizen that knows how to govern their passions when pissed off its the police officer.

    1. Training. They have training. And if they fuck up they’ll get more training. Did I mention training?

    2. And we all know cops have incredibly low instances of domestic violence compared to the general population and their divorce rates are so miniscule as to be statistically non-existent.

      1. You can say that again!

      2. This is one of the most intelligent things I’ve ever read.

    3. And we all know cops have incredibly low instances of domestic violence compared to the general population and their divorce rates are so miniscule as to be statistically non-existent.

      1. This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a long time.

    4. And we all know cops have incredibly low instances of domestic violence compared to the general population and their divorce rates are so miniscule as to be statistically non-existent.

      1. Jesus Christ. OK, we heard ya already!

      2. There’s nothing more peaceful than a home where the head of household is accustomed to using violence at the slightest hint of disrespect, and no one intervenes because they are the person who is supposed to intervene.
        Like Leave it to Beaver.

        1. Ward never had to use violence. Merely the threat of it was sufficient.

          1. I saw a Leave It To Beaver episode last night.

            It ended with June saying, “Ward, you have my promise. I’ll never listen to another Arab again.”

            (Season 1 Episode 6: Brotherly Love.)

            Fucking racists!

            1. Thus began our problems in the Middle East.

              1. If any of you don’t believe me, the episode is on Netflix right now. She says it with 3-4 minutes left in the episode in the kitchen as Ward makes a sandwich with possibly the largest tomato slice ever put between two pieces of bread.

                It’s funny…the little, subtle racism and stereotyping that went by without a word back then. Well, it’s sad actually, but you know what I mean.

                  1. Something about June being convinced to try sodomy by a smooth-talking swarthy gentleman. I forget the details.

                  2. She had read an Arabic book on brothers getting along and she made Wally and the Beaver sign a pact that they would get along and do stuff. They both had better shit to do one weekend but didn’t want to be the one that broke the pact. They found out each other wanted to break the pact and started fighting again. Ward just laughed at her womanly ignorance when it comes to brothers fighting and she finally acknowledged the superior intellect the western male has IRT familial relations over their Arabic brethren or women from any corner of the globe.

                    1. Chumps don’t want no help, chumps don’t get no help.

                    2. Hell no. Ward is right as rain. It just took June 23 minutes to realize it.

                      And another thing…Fred Rutherford showed up a couple of episodes ago after his daughter gave Beaver a black eye. Fred talks about both of his boys getting football scholarships to college while needling Ward about some bullshit at work.

                      So, where the fuck does Lumpy come in? Is he like the reverse Chuck Cunningham of the 50’s?

                    3. Ward is like the God of Fathers.

    5. I have to admit, if this law resulted in every cop who got divorced being deprived of his ability to carry a gun and thus lose his job, I might have to sign the petition.

  11. Fuck you, squirrels.

  12. A guy on my boat back in the day was a DV victim. The police actually rescued him from his closet one night and arrested him (apparently in WA the man goes to jail for DV calls). The ordeal included a restraining order and ended with him unable to carry a weapon on duty. It was a combination of hilarious and devastatingly sad.

    1. But I’m sure all procedures were followed! How could a bad result come of mindlessly following procedures?

      1. Procedures can be waived. This was the law.

        1. Well, there is a process for waiving procedures, I’m sure.

  13. Such legislation would protect victims from being re-victimized by defendants in the civil arena.

    So not getting a big payday in court is “victimization”? And this guy wasn’t a victim anyway, his wife was.

  14. Remember:

    Every male accused of domestic violence, is guilty ahead of time, and need not be tried in a court of law.

    /Feministing snark

  15. But guns are cool man, we should ALL have guns!

    http://www.Anon-Browse.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.