Shocking: Republican Governor Does Something That Makes Sense On Guns

rick-snyder-1It’s not often that I write an article consisting of a Republican standing up to the NRA and using a little common sense when it comes to gun laws. After all, this is the party that thinks guns have nothing to do with gun violence, or thinks schools should dedicate three weeks of the school year to NRA curriculum.


It’s essentially becoming impossible to have any sort of common sense discussion about guns in this country. When discussing universal background checks for all gun purchases spirals into “you’re trying to trample the Second Amendment and take away my guns” – there’s no longer any hope for rational discourse on the subject.

But every once in a while a Republican will use common sense when it comes to laws or regulations pertaining to guns. Which is what happened in Michigan when Governor Rick Snyder vetoed legislation that would have made it easier for people who are currently the subject of a personal protection order (restraining order) to obtain a gun.

And being that many people who have these orders against them are individuals accused of domestic violence, the NRA-backed legislation potentially could have put victims of domestic violence at an even greater risk.

“We simply can’t and won’t take the chance of exposing domestic abuse victims to additional violence or intimidation. There are certainly some reforms that can improve the way Michigan issues concealed pistol licenses and we support the rights of law-abiding firearm owners, but it’s crucial that we leave in place protections for people who already have endured challenges and abuse,” Governor Snyder said in a statement.

Of course, the NRA isn’t too happy with this veto.


“Simply put, if an individual is a domestic-abuser and has been charged or convicted as such, or a judge has made a determination that the individual should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm, that person will be prohibited from receiving a concealed pistol license under SB 789,” the NRA said in a statement.

Yeah, but the issue isn’t those convicted – it’s those still currently being investigated. Just because someone hasn’t been formally convicted doesn’t mean they’re any less dangerous.

It amazes me how absurd these arguments get when it comes to anything that might remotely make it slightly more difficult for someone to obtain a gun. There’s no logical reason why anyone should support a bill that could potentially make it easier for individuals under investigation for domestic abuse to obtain a gun.

And thankfully Governor Snyder has prevented that from happening in Michigan.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • js121

    Oh, brother, why doesn’t the writer get over it. Snyder has done NOTHING good for this STATE….NOTHING. So, he vetoes 1 lousy NRA law….he’s PASSED 1,000 ALEC (incl NRA) laws already. Unbelievable…he’s killing this State and you find ONE thing to grab on to.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Don’t have a lot of personal respect for a lot of what Snyder has done. However, kudos on this action.

    In an interesting parallel, here in MO the news reported on a bill that would restrict those convicted of domestic abuse from having firearms. As you suggest in the article there was a hue and cry about this being the first step to taking away 2nd amendement, etc.

    The other illogical retort was that domestic violence offenders (even when teh police come on a call to a house with an argument in process) can just as well use knives and rocks can kill just as well as a gun. (To which I have to ask, if that is true, why don’t the ammosexuals turn in their firearms and change the 2nd amendment to guarantee the right to have knives and rocks).

    • Jim Bean

      The other problem is that restraining orders are frequently issued based on accusations made by others and in the absence of any conviction.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Accusations that the individual had the opportunity to refute.

      • Jim Bean

        And almost always did.

      • Cemetery Girl

        A surprising amount of people don’t bother to go to court to refute. Why they don’t bother, who knows. Approving protection orders is handled very much like a lawsuit. Both parties even have the option of being represented by a lawyer, but it isn’t required. Even if the person the order is against doesn’t come to court the person requesting it still has to provide reason; so while it is likely to be approved if the other person doesn’t appear in court it isn’t automatic. A conviction of a crime is not required, but it isn’t required to win a lawsuit either.

      • Jim Bean

        And if the accuser in the case made claims that that accused did something of a felony nature and someone made the argument his constitutional right to vote should be revoked like any other felon, the Left would make exactly the same arguments against that that they would reject when the constitutional right to possess a gun is involved.

        The fact that a person doesn’t contest someone taking out a restraining order can simply mean the person just doesn’t give a damn. You’re not guilty of anything until you’ve pleaded guilty or been convicted by a court.

      • Cemetery Girl

        If someone doesn’t give a damn if they have a restraining order placed against them, which by the way is a matter of public record, and have their freedom to go wherever they please limited (they cover the protected person’s residence and workplace even if that workplace is open to the public, like a store or restaurant), then why should they give a damn if during the time frame of the protection order they can’t buy a gun? The person that has the order against them risks time in jail if they violate the order.
        You are ignoring that a protection order is granted in court. A court has found just cause to believe that a person is a threat to another person. It is not a criminal matter, even if criminal charges are given as evidence it isn’t a criminal matter. It does not change that it is a matter which a court has made a ruling, it does become a matter of public record, and they aren’t doled out willy nilly because it is a serious matter. It is handled just like a lawsuit, which if you lose a lawsuit it can impact your credit rating, it can interfere with a person getting a loan. A protection order shows on a background check, if the court rules that someone is a danger to another person why shouldn’t that impact the ability to purchase a gun? You frequently argue for personal responsibility and people accepting the consequences of their actions. A court decides that a person is a danger to someone else then don’t they have to accept the consequences? The hope with any restraining order is that will be enough to discourage the person that it is against, but the reality is it is just a piece of paper and not a magic shield. If the person violates the order then they face those consequences but too often if the person violates the order they will physically harm the other person. Why make deadly force easier?

      • Jim Bean

        You are ignoring that a man is being denied a constitutional right on a he says/she says basis even though never having been found guilty of anything or even charged with a crime. Or perhaps due process doesn’t matter to you. And no, this restraining order ceremony does not constitute due process in accordance with the 7th Amendment. If you don’t have just cause to put him in jail for it, you certainly don’t have the right to disarm him.

      • Cemetery Girl

        It was long ago interpreted that the 7th amendment applies to federal court, not state or county. And once again, protection orders fall under the realm of civil court. Just as with other civil matters it does not have to rely on a conviction of a crime. If I owed you money you could sue me for that amount (a civil matter) and if it is determined I do owe you money I do not have to be convicted of theft or fraud first. Sorry you don’t like the system of obtaining a protection order, but I do hope you or someone you care for is ever in a situation that they need to file for one. (Men get protection orders also. It isn’t just some feminist, man-hater tool.)

      • Jim Bean

        Constitutional rights however, do not fall under the jurisdiction of civil court. Civil court can’t take away someone’s constitution right to be free by putting them jail.
        The right to bear arms is a constitutional right also.

      • Cemetery Girl

        The 7th Amendment refers to common law (civil).

    • Cemetery Girl

      True, a knife or rock could be used, I actually worked with a woman that her husband tried to kill her with a cinder block, but it doesn’t change the fact that a gun makes the ease of being able to do grave harm increases. Often an abuser will continue that behavior in subsequent relationships, so if the abuser is convicted and the victim leaves the relationship the abuser is likely to bring that behavior to the next relationship.

  • radsenior

    “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!” And Wayne “Fifi” LePew absolved himself and all the gun dealers, gun show gatherings, backyard arms dealers, internet arms dealers, war-mongers and gun shows of the world. Wayne “Fifi” LePew takes no blame and absolves killing toddlers, wives, husbands, police, students. I still would not vote for this Governor.

  • Jim Bean

    The problem here is that people’s gun rights are being denied on the basis of unproven and untested accusations made by others. If someone were telling you that you wouldn’t be allowed to vote because a neighbor has accused you of committing a felony the Left would be making the argument that the exact opposite reaction was the only appropriate one. Liberalism is a sea of contradictions and individual thoughts, each in it own vacuum.

    This is why the NRA fights everything – because the anti-gunners use every opportunity to take anything and everything they can get.

    Where’s my check book and NRA ID number?

    • Cemetery Girl

      Protection orders are not given out willy nilly. An emergency order can be approved by a judge without the accused appearing, but they cover a shorter time period and the judge will make this ruling based on evidence collected. That is going to be given in connection to criminal charges. A regular protection order the person requesting it must go to the police and file a request. A court date is scheduled and the person that is being filed against is notified. Both parties are supposed to appear in court, both are given the chance to provide their proof. If the person the order is against does not show up in court they won’t face criminal charges but it will likely be granted. (It is a lot like how a lawsuit is handled.) This order lasts longer than the emergency order (which basically is intended to cover the time period during which a standard order can be pursued.) Not being able to purchase a gun when having a restraining order against you is not a case of an individual having their rights trampled because of an accusation in which they had no ability to refute the claim.

      • Joe B

        I take perticular offense at your very first statement, I beg to differ, you are obviously one of the tens of millions who only listen to the feminazi party line. Protective orders, restraining orders, po’s, ro’s, fro’s, tro’s whatever you want to call them, are one of the single most abused motions in the entire usa right now, let me fill you in and clear some common misconceptions about these orders, first you dont have to be there to get hit with one, i was 1500 miles away, the plaintif can make any obsubstantiated statement they want whitout any fear of ever being charged with purgery, the burdon of proof is on the defendent (crespo v crespo), the defendant has NO constitutional rights, yep we’re in a court of equity so no rights to a lawyer, discovery or anything else, These orders are being used daily by liers looking to leverage or legaly steal your property, how can someone steal your house, easy and ill use nj for instance, file an order, and win , wich doeant take much, the defendant is out, the order is PERMENANT! FOR EVER! NO REVIEW! plaintiff gets house , you get bent over. Dont believe me look it up, oh and lets not forget all this violates the 7th amendment not to mention the 4th and a handfull of other amendments too, but this is the way the feminazis like it , because if this was in a crimminal court 90% of these cases would die before trial , still think restraining orders are fair , just and equal, get hit with one by a vengeful spouse or jilted lover and then lets see what you have to say, lastly i urge everyone who reads this to look at david lettermans case from 2005 in NM, he was slapped with a ro because he was comming into a womans room at nite over the airwaves and sending her secret mind control messages, yeah it sounds funny now, but this psycho actually found a judge to issue the order instead of commiting this woman for a psych eval . Thats how easy these rediculous orders are to get

      • Cemetery Girl

        The person that the order is against is notified to attend. (If you were not served papers then the court failed their duty.) Both parties can be represented by a lawyer, but it is not required. An emergancy order is handled differently, but it is also temporary and only intended to cover the time period of filing for a regular order. Regular orders are typically have a time in which they expire also. Men can, and do, obtain protection orders also, so it isn’t some crazy “feminazi” scam to screw over guys.