Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => Delaware News => Topic started by: groundgrid on May 07, 2015, 04:22:43 AM
-
Link to the actual bill:
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/vwLegislation/SB+83/$file/legis.html?open
Link to NRA-ILA explanation of the bill:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150506/delaware-bill-that-violates-due-process-to-be-heard-in-committee-your-help-is-needed
Gabby Giffords will be in Dover today (Thursday) to lobby for the bill.
We need to have a massive presence at.the committee hearing (date currently unknown) .
It is highly likely that this bill was introduced based on the assumption that we have all lost interest in politics. Should it pass, it will be followed by many more. They will be pushed through on the fastest track possible.
Let's all shift back into high gear for the next few weeks & put a stop to it.
Call, write, e-mail & visit your senators as soon as possible.
-
My letter to my co-sponsoring Rep with a copy to my Senator. The latter doesn't get involved until the bill is out of committee.
Rep. _______
As a co-sponsor of SB 83 and my state Representative, please explain by return e-mail how removing this clause, (other than an ex parte order), from 11 Del C. §1448(a)(6) does not violate this sentence contained in the 14th Amendment Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In my reasoning, confiscating property from an individual based on an unsubstantiated charge violates due process. What say you?
-
Committee hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, May 13th at 1:30PM
Hopefully this will change but considering that the committee chair is one of the sponsors it may not.
As I suspected, bill is fast tracked.
Opposition now will go a long way toward getting it pushed back.
-
Here are the sponsor and co-sponsors of the bill, followed by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Contact them, especially if they represent your district, and voice your disapproval. Note our 'favorite' RINO is one of the co-sponsors. IMO, the offending piece is the removal of the 'ex parte' clause from 11 Del. C. §1448(a)(6). Though IANAL, this means that if someone files a Family Protection Abuse order against you that you must surrender your firearms within 24 hours of notification and then you get to go to court to try to get them back. If this interpretation is incorrect, please render the correct meaning.
Senate Bill 83
Primary Sponsor(s): Henry Additional Sponsor(s): Rep. Longhurst
Co-Sponsors: Sens. Cloutier, Peterson, Townsend; NewLine, Reps. Barbieri, Baumbach, Bolden, Heffernan, Jaques, Keeley, Kowalko, Lynn, Potter, B. Short
Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman: Henry
Members: Blevins, Lavelle, McDowell, Simpson, Townsend
You can search for the SB 83 bill description using Bill Quick Search (upper right). http://legis.delaware.gov
If you need to look up your senator and representatives names, you can navigate through the link above or, open your county parcel search and lookup your name/address
http://www3.nccde.org/parcel/search
http://kent400.co.kent.de.us
http://www.sussexcountyde.gov/name-search
-
The Progressives (Jack The Whack and Company) just have to screw with us. When I moved here in 1994 Dems and Repubs got along and it was very gun friendly. Then the liberal progressives took over and we now have problems. They brought in Giffords this year and last year her husband, Kelly along with the Newtown Parents. IMHO this is despicable, outsiders have no business involving themselves in the law making process in DE. It appears that Bloomberg money has come and DE Progressives have their hands out. For me it is almost time to move to another state.
-
The Progressives (Jack The Whack and Company) just have to screw with us. When I moved here in 1994 Dems and Repubs got along and it was very gun friendly. Then the liberal progressives took over and we now have problems. They brought in Giffords this year and last year her husband, Kelly along with the Newtown Parents. IMHO this is despicable, outsiders have no business involving themselves in the law making process in DE. It appears that Bloomberg money has come and DE Progressives have their hands out. For me it is almost time to move to another state.
Yes, it is very upsetting
-
I am not a lawyer. This looks like it goes into effect AFTER the motion is considered:
(a) After consideration of a petition for a protective order, the Court may grant relief as follows:[/b]
Also what does ex-parte mean.
Is it really true that this goes into effect before a hearing? I want to be right when I contact my representative as he could go either way I think.
Clarification please.
-
Ex Parte (from dictionary.com): from or on one side only of a dispute, as a divorce suit; without notice to or the presence of the other party.
read this paragraph carefully. The strikethrough wording is being removed from existing law. The bold wording is being added. Short interpretation: your ex files and gets an abuse order on you. You have surrender firearms now and go to court later.
§ 1448. Possession and purchase of deadly weapons by persons prohibited; penalties.
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, the following persons are prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing or controlling a deadly weapon or ammunition for a firearm within the State:
(6) Any person who is subject to a Family Court protection from abuse order (other than an ex parte order), but only for so long as that order remains in effect or is not vacated or otherwise terminated, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a contested order issued solely upon § 1041(1)d., e., or h. of Title 10, or any combination thereof. Such prohibition is effective immediately upon entry of the protection from abuse order as to purchasing or otherwise obtaining a firearm or ammunition and is effective as to owning, possessing, or controlling any deadly weapon 24 hours after personal service of the protection from abuse order upon the person;
-
So entry of the order means when it is filed and not when it is approved by a judge?
Wow. No due process.
I guess in a perfect world taking "vacation" from firearms could be a good idea if there is truly a valid threat of armed violence. Unfortunately a vindictive spouse and lawyer can and do use the system to gain advantage in divorce and custody.
This is why a full hearing with facts and evidence needs to happen.
My wife and I are on this Monday with my representative ( forget my senator)
-
In this case ex=parte means that the order can be issued without all of the involved parties being given the opportunity to appear before the judge who is issuing the order.
Therefore, an order could be issued for a person to relinquish their guns without that person even knowing that a PFA order was being sought. For example, your ex from up to 5 years ago sees you out with a hot babe, gets jealous & tells the judge that you have guns and
that she feels threatened by you. Based on her statement alone the judge can issue an order for you to surrender your guns within 24 hours. You have no idea that this is happening until the police show up at your door.
This violates our constitutional protections on multiple levels & is completely unacceptable.
Furthermore, the police bear no responsibility for the safe keeping of your guns. Should you eventually get them back who knows what damage you might find. Plus, you are forced to pay them and only them to store your guns. There is no limit to what they can charge & that amount may quickly exceed the value of your guns.
There are already procedures in place under which the police can disarm you, therefore the proposed law is absolutely not necessary.
IMO, if the bill cannot be defeated in its entirety, the following changes are necessary:
1). Leave in place the existing ban on ex-parte orders.
2). Make the request of a PFA order under false pretenses a felony & allow the falsely accused party to sue for damages.
3). Should the police need to take guns away from someone, they are fully responsible for the proper storage & handling of those guns.
4). No fees should be assessed for the storage of seized weapons & they should be automatically returned on the expiration of the PFA order. Furthermore, the police should be barred from destroying your property that is in their possession.
5). The 5 year time limit for someone to ask for a PFA order is ridiculous. The way that the bill is worded, someone that you lived with for a few weeks 4 years ago can still file for a PFA order. Once a relationship is over, its over, especially if you have no contact with that person.
-
Another issue that I forgot.
In many messy divorces PFA orders are routinely filed by both parties even if there is no history of violence.
Most people simply abide by the orders & stay away from their ex.
The passage of this bill makes this a much more complicated matter. There is no consideration for these types of situations in the bill.
-
I'm not an attorney in Delaware, but for a bit of clarification, here's how a protective order can be obtained (this part is not affected by the proposed law):
One party (the Petitioner) goes to court and files and applies for an emergency protective order alleging that his/her partner (the Respondent) has engaged in domestic violence. Pursuant to 10 Del C. §1043, the court conducts an ex parte hearing (meaning the Respondent isn't in court and doesn't get to tell his/her side; the court only gets one side of the story). If the court determines that the preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation (i.e. if its more likely than not that it happened), the court issues the emergency order. Then the Respondent is entitled to a hearing within 30 days. At that time, s/he has an opportunity to tell his/her side of the story to the court, and the judge makes the decision to vacate the order or continue it.
Under this new proposed statute, the Respondent's firearm(s) would have to be confiscated pending that final hearing (and if the order is maintained after that).
So, let's say you've got a nasty break-up going on. Your partner knows you love your firearms, so s/he goes to court and says you assaulted him/her and s/he needs protection -- oh, and you have firearms. Without you being there, the court could grant the emergent order, removing you from the house and also ordering the seizure of your arms pending the full hearing.
If it's any consolation (which it isn't), the new law doesn't apply if the basis for the protective order is: "engaging in a course of alarming or distressing conduct in a manner which is likely to cause fear or emotional distress or to provoke a violent or disorderly response;" or "Trespassing on or in property of another person, or on or in property from which the trespasser has been excluded by court order." The allegation has to be something more serious.
If you don't think this is a potential problem, let me say that this is very similar to the way things work in New Jersey (where I am an attorney). I can tell you, even if the order is later dismissed, it's a serious pain in the butt getting those firearms returned. Of course, Jersey is still worse. There, if an officer responds to a domestic violence call and the officer sees any signs of domestic violence (which could just be redness), the officer must arrest the suspect. In addition, the officer must then inquire if there are weapons on the premises and "seize any weapon that the officer reasonably believes would expose the victim to a risk of serious bodily injury." N.J.S.A. §2C:25-21. So the officer gets to make the determination right there at the scene whether your firearms are going to be taken.
-
My state senator Sen.Gary Simpson was sent an email. A quick response was returned and the Senator will vote NO on SB 83. Sen.Simpson is very much aware of 2nd Amend. and respects the rights of the citizens. All I can say is thank you Sen.Simpson.
-
I too have written Sen. Colin Bonini asking for a NO vote on SB83.
-
Here is a copy of a news release from SAF regarding a case that happened in another state. If this bill is enacted into law it will happen here soon:
Arizona Navy Vet Gets Guns Back, Thanks SAF
BELLEVUE, WA – A retired Navy veteran in Arizona whose gun collection had been seized by Glendale police now has his firearms back, the Second Amendment Foundation revealed today.
SAF had intervened in the case of Glendale resident Rick Bailey early last month, taking on funding of the case and working with Chandler, Ariz., attorney Marc J. Victor. Bailey’s case had fired up Second Amendment activists across the country after police confiscated 28 firearms valued at more than $25,000, which Bailey had collected over more than a decade.
Bailey was generous in his praise of SAF’s intervention, noting, “I want to thank Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation for all the help in getting my firearms returned.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said he was honored to have been able to step in with support for what he called a “worthy effort on behalf of a deserving veteran.”
Bailey had complained to the City of Glendale about a neighbor’s habit of parking dump trucks used in his landscaping company. The dispute unfolded over several months until Bailey called police over concerns of toxic chemical odors apparently coming from the neighbor’s property. The neighbor apparently alleged that Bailey had threatened him, and the following day, he obtained a harassment order against Bailey.
“Mr. Bailey had been devastated by incident,” Gottlieb explained. “This all started because of a dispute with a neighbor that got way out of hand. Nobody should have their life turned upside down, and their property seized, because of an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated.
“I want to credit attorney Marc Victor for his work in this legal action,” he added. “He was on top of this case, and SAF was delighted to help out with funding.”
“Now that Rick Bailey has his firearms back,” Gottlieb observed, “perhaps his dignity can also be restored. This kind of silly season story should never happen in real life.”
-
Senator Ennis... is a NO to SB 83...
-
As of 6:20 pm today, SB 83 is not on the Wed 5/13 agenda. Keep up the pressure on your legislators. My rep, Jaques, didn't answer my e-mail request for his reason for co-sponsoring SB 83.
-
Bethany Hall-Long said she had not yet read the bill, but says that she has always protected 2nd Amendment rights and has proven it in past votes.
-
Greg Lavelle said no...
-
NRA-ILA says the SB 83 has been scheduled for a Senate Judiciary meeting on 6/3 but I don't see a meeting notice on legis.delaware.gov
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150514/delaware-committee-hearing-scheduled-for-bill-that-violates-due-process-your-help-is-needed
-
SB 83 is now on the Senate Judiciary Agenda for 6/3. Mark your calendars and speak out at the hearing.
-
Head fake!
SB 83 no longer on 6/3 Senate Judiciary Cmte agenda
-
They don't have the votes & don't want to be embarrassed with another defeat.
As long as we keep up the pressure the bill will continue to die a slow death.
-
They don't have the votes & don't want to be embarrassed with another defeat.
As long as we keep up the pressure the bill will continue to die a slow death.
Yes, heard that too....
-
Joet thanks for the post and yes we just have to keep the pressure on them. They just have to screw with us and I am sick and tired of it.
-
The Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence web page has posted that the hearing for SB 83 is now scheduled for June 10. I have not tried to verify that info yet. Just wanted to let everyone know that this bill is still going to come up. Their new poll claiming broad support for the bill includes that two thirds of gun owners in Delaware support this bill. Sounds like they are using the same poll results among gun owners from 2013 when they claimed that the majority of gun owners in Delaware supported the gun control bills that they tried to pass in 2013. For those of you interested in what the anti's are claiming as reasons to pass this bill check out their web page and the poll results.
-
From Greg Lavelle, hearing scheduled 6/3 at 12:00
-
Just sent email to Sen. Bonini and Lawson and all of my Delaware email friends asking for their help.
-
From Greg Lavelle, hearing scheduled 6/3 at 12:00
This may be freshly-breaking news or old news. As of now, the only Senate Judiciary mtg notice posted is for 6/3 and only HB 75 is on the agenda.
-
This was from Greg Lavelle Monday, my e-mail.
-
Got a message from NRA-ILA that the hearing has been postponed.
Keep up the pressure. Let's make sure this dangerous bill never sees light of day.
-
Received a note from Bridgeville R&P that SB-83 has been rescheduled to June 10, 2015. The note was sent at 7:36 tonight. Bridgeville says they need to confirm the date.
-
Here is the NRA notice:
As previously reported, the Delaware Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to hear Senate Bill 83 next week. Your NRA-ILA has learned that this hearing has been postponed and has not yet been rescheduled for a hearing.
SB 83 would violate the due process of Delaware citizens. SB 83 would exceed current Delaware and federal law, and would allow abuse orders, which can be issued ex parte, to be issued without evidence that a person committed any actual act of harm against a person, or that the person has even been charged with any criminal act. After the order has been processed a person would be disqualified from owning any firearms or ammunition.
Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated when more information is made available or when a new hearing has been scheduled for SB 83.
-
Brian Pettyjohn of the 19th district says he will be voting against SB83
-
they are still looking for votes...
-
SB83 is on Wednesday's committee schedule.
Attend if possible.
-
NRA alert...they must have the votes. Vote could come as early as tomorrow. Swamp the lines!!!!!
-
Just checked the agenda this morning. This bill is now out of committee. It had zero favorable votes, four votes on its merits and zero unfavorable votes.
-
Do we know who voted and how? Any perspective from someone who attended?
-
Well the bill passed on a straight Democrat Party line vote and one Republican, or so I'm told. Does anyone know who that Republican was?
Remember this come Election time. The problem is Delawareans keep making the same mistake (voting Democrats in) and expecting a different result. Say, isn't that the same definition as a FOOL?
-
We are out numbered by Progressives and they control the state and our lives. Anyone who enjoys shooting,guns and the 2nd Amend should not move to DE. I am trying to get the hell out but it could take time. I moved here in 1994 and things were different but that has changed since Jack The Whack Markel and his ilk took control. I just want to know if a Republican voted for this.
-
We are out numbered by Progressives and they control the state and our lives. Anyone who enjoys shooting,guns and the 2nd Amend should not move to DE. I am trying to get the hell out but it could take time. I moved here in 1994 and things were different but that has changed since Jack The Whack Markel and his ilk took control. I just want to know if a Republican voted for this.
Delaware is way better than Maryland where you don't even want to think of owning a handgun let alone carrying. You must either have been the victim of a violent crime, A person that carries large sums of money for your own business or for the place you work and take a 16 hour safety course that the last time I checked was around 3 to 400 dollars and it is still a may issue.
-
I checked the SB 83 passed by the Delaware Senate Judiciary Committee and the vote was 4-0 (on it's Merits). The 4 voting for it were all Democrats (duh surprise, surprise) The two Republicans (Lavelle and Simpson) did not vote. So here one more right the Democrats have taken from Delaware gun owners.
But, will this be remembered come election time. I think not. There are just so many brain dead, vote party line, Liberal Progressive Democrats here it stinks.
-
The bill is out of committee but (as far as I can tell) has not been voted on by the full senate.
While the chances of it not being passed are small, we still have a chance.
Keep putting pressure on your senators, especially if they are D's & up for reelection next year.
If this bill gets to the House, the chances of stopping it are much lower.
There appears to be an ever increasing disrespect for the Constitution by our elected representatives.
-
Received this and sent to all DSPC members who have email addresses....
----------------------------------
From: "John Sigler"
Date: Jun 11, 2015 5:35:20 PM
Subject: Another Up-Date on SB 83
To:
TO ALL:
Today was apparently interesting, to say the least. Our legislative team has been working very hard defending against this very bad bill and it looks like their good work is having an effect.
SB 83 was removed from the Senate's agenda today and placed back on the Ready List.
We are now told that it will probably be heard sometime next week - I will inform you when it will be heard, but right now it looks like it will probably be heard on Tuesday.
As soon as we know for sure, I will inform you of when SB 83 is placed back on the Senate Agenda.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Sigler
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:22 PM
To:
Subject: Up-Date on SB 83
Importance: High
To All DSSA Board Members:
SB 83 was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee today. Jeff Hague, Tom Shellenberger and Anthony Delcollo did outstanding jobs testifying on behalf of Due Process and the rights of law-abiding gun owners - as did NRA's Shannon Alford and Rick Armitage. The witnesses on other side were less than intellectually and factually honest, as usual.
When everyone left the Chamber they were told by the sponsor who also happened to be the committee chair, Sen. Henry, that the bill would be heard on Tuesday - after both sides had adequate opportunity to work out "fixes" addressing the flaws in the bill - neither of those promises were correct!
SB 83 is being "fast tracked" and will be on tomorrow's Senate agenda.
We have drafted a total of 22 potential amendments for consideration - if they actually do bring the bill to the floor for a vote, we hope to have those amendments introduced and voted upon.
If you have not already done so, please call your state senator and politely ask that they vote NO on SB 83.
Thanks,
John
-------------------------------
-
Its good to see and active, organized effort to deal with this. Thank you John, Anthony and others!
-
Latest word from Greg Lavelle:
"It wasn't heard on the floor on Thursday and was sent back to what we call the "Ready List" and is not currently on an agenda. I suppose the reality for putting back on the ready list is that they didn't have the votes.
Proponents and opponents are in discussion to see if an acceptable compromise can be reached."
My thought:
Is there a "compromise" that can resolve the concerns we have with this or is it just a lesser defeat?
-
Most people seem to agree that there may be a time when someone needs a "vacation" from their guns.
IMO, for this to happen fairly, the following would need to occur.
1). Due process including an appearance before a judge & representation by an attorney.
2). Any such order by the court should be for a finite time period not to exceed a reasonable duration (6 months)
3). A formal appeal process.
4). A decision based on a verifiable threat to the accuser eg. witnessed threats made.
It is important that the accused not have their rights abridged just because they are a gun owner.
5). If a persons guns need to be held by another party, the accused must be able to choose that party eg. a gun dealer, gun club or possibly a service provided by the NRA.
6). If their guns need to be held by the police, there can be no fee associated with that service. (Isn't that why we pay taxes)
7). The police are obligated to return the guns when the order expires.
8. The police are barred from destroying the guns that are left with them for safe keeping.
9). Should the accused be convicted of a disqualifying crime he/she should be able to direct the disposition of the guns. eg. sold by
a licensed dealer or given to an approved third party.
10). The making of false accusations must be a felony. (You can guess why this is necessary)
11). Accusations must be made within 2 years of the triggering event (divorce, breakup etc).
-
BRAVO GROUNDGRID!
-
I agree Groundgrid. Is this suggestion in the hands of a suitable legislator? That is how we exercise some control in this process - make a practical counteroffer!
-
Please feel free to forward these suggestions to your legislator (If they are friendly).
I will send them to Greg Lavelle
-
I received an interesting phone call a few minutes ago. It was someone calling to "keep me informed of significant legislative developments" regarding firearms and domestic violence. I asked, "is this about SB83?" At which point he hung up! I guess he figured if I knew about it, it was pointless to discuss it with me.
I'm wondering if the call was pro- or anti- SB83. Has anyone received a similar call?
-
Was there a number associated with the call? Would be interesting to know just what group is calling. Next month "poll numbers showing 89% of call recipients said no to guns...." via random phone calls. Just ignore the fact they hung up on anyone who actually has any knowledge about the subject. Lol that's one way to ensure the numbers work in their favor. ::)
-
Was there a number associated with the call? Would be interesting to know just what group is calling. Next month "poll numbers showing 89% of call recipients said no to guns...." via random phone calls. Just ignore the fact they hung up on anyone who actually has any knowledge about the subject. Lol that's one way to ensure the numbers work in their favor. ::)
That's exactly what I was thinking. The caller ID said simply "Dover, DE." When I redialed the number I got a recorded message saying "we called you to participate in a discussion of current events and you're opinion matters" but if I wanted to be removed from their calling list, press 1. I didn't press 1. I hope they call back.
-
groundgrid - I took the liberty of copying your excellent suggestions to my State Senator - Ernie Lopez - and I asked him to oppose SB83 and to work to change or replace the bill with your suggestions. I did credit you with the suggestions.
-
I'm in Senate District 14, and wrote Senator Ennis' office 13 days ago, voicing my opposition to S.B. 83, and; I inquired about his position regarding the legislation. I have yet to receive a response from them. I emailed again this evening, but I am not holding my breath on a response.
-
I believe I got the same call yesterday. I was watching TV and the phone rang and since I'm with Comcast the call showed up on the screen. It just said Dover, De. and the number. I think it was 302-257 XXXX. Since I have a answering machine to screen out telemarketing calls, I didn't pickup. Have not heard from then again.
-
I'm in Senate District 14, and wrote Senator Ennis' office 13 days ago, voicing my opposition to S.B. 83, and; I inquired about his position regarding the legislation. I have yet to receive a response from them. I emailed again this evening, but I am not holding my breath on a response.
He is a NO vote.....If you will PM me I will forward his e-mail to you that he sent to me of his view of S.B.83, I will also give you his e-mail address (not the one at the state)
He is a pro gun, farmer, and hunter
-
Just received a note from my Senator, Ernie Lopez. He says SB83 is on the agenda for TODAY.
-
Just called Patty Blevins's office again.
-
A substitute bill (SS1 for SB83) was introduced today & passed by the full senate.
Most notable changes:
-Firearms can be given to an FFL for safe keeping instead of the police.
-The line about fees being charged by the police has disappeared.
-The petitioner is now subject to prosecution for making a false statement.
-The required gun inventory is not subject to FOIA requests (it remains confidential).
-The time duration after a relationship ends has been reduced from 5 years to 3 years.
-Section 2, Paragraph 6 has not been changed therefore not striking the "other than an ex parte order" clause
This is a great win for us. These changes prove that, as a group, we have considerable influence.
-
SS 1 for SB 83 Henry Passed
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 10 AND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Date: 06/17/2015 05:26 PM Passed
Vote Type:SM Yes: 15 No: 6 Not Voting: 0 Absent: 0
Blevins Y Hocker N Peterson Y
Bonini Y Lavelle N Pettyjohn N
Bushweller Y Lawson N Poore Y
Cloutier Y Lopez Y Richardson N
Ennis N Marshall Y Simpson Y
Hall-Long Y McBride Y Sokola Y
Henry Y McDowell Y Townsend Y
There it is...Please thank those who voted NO..why we keep voting for the rest is beyond me..
now time to e-mail and call our Reps..
-
A substitute bill (SS1 for SB83) was introduced today & passed by the full senate.
Most notable changes:
-Firearms can be given to an FFL for safe keeping instead of the police.
-The line about fees being charged by the police has disappeared.
-The petitioner is now subject to prosecution for making a false statement.
-The required gun inventory is not subject to FOIA requests (it remains confidential).
-The time duration after a relationship ends has been reduced from 5 years to 3 years.
-Section 2, Paragraph 6 has not been changed therefore not striking the "other than an ex parte order" clause
This is a great win for us. These changes prove that, as a group, we have considerable influence.
Having carefully read through SS 1 for SB 83, all the concerns that I had and discussed with my Senator have been addressed. I have no problem with her voting for this bill.
-
So does this mean there will be due process since the petitioner can be charged for making a false statement?
-
From what I've been able to determine after reading the bill, the exception for the "ex parte" order has not been removed. A person will have his/her day in court before having to surrender their firearms, which will be able to be surrendered to a Delaware FFL. Also, the bill doesn't take effect until 2017.
-
This new bell can work for me. I am pleased that so many folks did a lot of work that this ended in a way that will work for both sides. I want to thank everyone for doing what was needed to come to a ending that complied with both sides. I am pleased that my State Senator G.Simpson did the right thing. All the best to everyone on this site.
-
A substitute bill (SS1 for SB83) was introduced today & passed by the full senate.
Most notable changes:
-Firearms can be given to an FFL for safe keeping instead of the police.
*
*
*
I think this first item is a hollow victory. The bill does not give the accused the choice to surrender to an FFL. It still says that: "firearms shall be relinquished immediately to a police officer if requested by the police officer upon personal service of the protective order. If no request is made by a police officer, the relinquishment shall occur within 24 hours of personal service of the order at any staffed police station or a federally-licensed firearms dealer located in Delaware[...]"
So all the serving officer has to do is ask for the guns and s/he still gets them. Period. No FFL. I can easily see the police adopting a policy where they always ask for firearms when protective orders are service.