Man charged in estranged wife's slaying was subject to gun ban The Des Moines Register finds that the husband, Randall Moore, was ordered to turn any and all firearms that he owned into law enforcement authorities.
Randall Moore, accused of shooting and killing his estranged wife this week, was not supposed to possess firearms, according to a protective order issued by a Polk County judge, a review of court records shows.The article gives a history lesson on the Violence Against Women Act and how it's provisions against firearm possession by those under restraining orders from the courts.
In October, Polk County District Judge Karen Romano barred Randall Moore from having contact with his wife and ordered him to surrender all his firearms to county law enforcement by Oct. 26. Moore signed the document, agreeing to comply with the order.
The lesson we see here is that a piece of paper doesn't protect anyone from a piece of shit. When we rely on paper, tragedies strike. Our thoughts and prayers go out for the family and friends of this young woman (excluding the dirt-bag, of course).
When returning to the article, we find that it describes the failures by law enforcement to track down these guys and the difficulty in confiscating the firearms they are no longer allowed to possess.
And then they go off the reservation with the following statement:
Even if the alleged abuser surrenders firearms, the only type of weapon that requires a background check upon purchase is a handgun. Nothing prevents alleged abusers from borrowing weapons or buying new or used hunting rifles.That's not entirely accurate.
In order to purchase a handgun in the state, even for private sales, a buyer must obtain a permit and present it to the seller. To get a permit, one has to have a NICS check. (I posted about the the permit process before @ Adventures in the permit process While true that a private sale does not go through a background check, going to a licensed gun dealer for a purchase will require one.
"Nothing prevents..." Looking at that statement from another angle: There is a statute on the books and that piece of paper prevents no one from violating that law. But are the writers advocating having society wound so tightly that "law enforcement" enforces the law and prevent crime? Every time and everywhere, where prevention of crime would be the norm?
The mis-named "law enforcement" officers do not prevent crime. That's not their job. They come in after the fact to punish those who violate the law. Period.
But I don't think the authors get that.
Again, may Tereseann rest in peace.