NRA Changes Stance On Guns For ‘Abusers’

By Bluegrass Bruce

Abuse but By Whom?
Abuse but By Whom?
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Kentucky –-( Last week, the Governor of Vermont signed a law allowing police to confiscate guns from anyone under a judicial order for domestic abuse.

This means that men and women accused of domestic crimes in Vermont could lose their Second Amendment rights before ever seeing a jury.

Similar laws have passed this year in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Louisiana. In each of these states, local gun groups protested the laws arguing that they not only violate the Second Amendment but also of contradict the basic concept of “innocent until proven guilty.”

The groups also argue that these laws will not do very much to actually protect victims of domestic violence. In Vermont, only one domestic violence murder was committed with a firearm during the most recent year on record. In Minnesota, a state of nearly five and a half million people, there were only ten such crimes last year.

Despite this, all four of these laws passed easily in each state. And in each case, their passage was approved and aided by the least likely of organizations: the NRA.

Over the past year, the NRA has been quietly helping legislators pass this kind of domestic violence legislation, either by promising not to oppose the bills or by actively working with the bills’ liberal sponsors. After the Minnesota bill passed, Minnesota Democratic State Rep. Dan Schoen said: “The NRA has been really good to work with on this particular issue. It pains me to say, but they have been.”

It is not entirely clear why the NRA is doing this. Until recently, it strongly opposed this kind of legislation and was successful in preventing the passage of these laws. Perhaps its change of heart has something to do with its recent outreach to women, or maybe it is another one of its lame efforts to appear “bipartisan”.

Who knows?

Either way, the NRA shouldn’t be handing victories to the gun grabbers just to protect its own image.


About Bluegrass Bruce
Bluegrass Bruce is a hunter, political blogger, and UK basketball fan from Kentucky. His opinions on gun rights and politics are posted on “Bluegrass Bruce” and shared on websites and blogs across the United States. Visit:

  • 4 thoughts on “NRA Changes Stance On Guns For ‘Abusers’

    1. So the NRA is still telling them when they are being stupid. It is just now they’re listening more and calling it helpful.

    2. In Wisconsin, Assembly Bill 464 cleared up the process for turning in firearms from a person who is subject to a permanent restraining order. This new law fixes a fifth amendment violation that was occurring and did not expand categories of prohibited persons for firearms. The reason for this legislation was to address abuses by law enforcement relating to returning seized firearms. There is now a clear process defined for disposition of the firearms and a timeline for their return.

    3. The new Vermont law does nothing to deny gun rights to a person relative to domestic violence. House Bill 735 sets the fees for how much an FFL can charge someone who is subject to a temporary restraining order for storing that person’s firearms. It was already current law that they had to surrender the firearms. Act 191 now allows judges the discretion to permit the person to store the firearms with a third party, including a family member, as long as both parties sign a sworn affidavit.

      In Louisiana, the NRA successfully fought to remove provisions allowing law enforcement to confiscate firearms from suspected abusers and those under protective orders from the overall domestic violence bill which passed and was enacted. The NRA also actively opposed and ensured defeat separate legislation in Baton Rouge that would have required gun confiscation in those circumstances.

      What did pass, which the NRA did not support, was much weaker than current federal law: a ten-year prohibition for misdemeanor domestic battery conviction as compared to a permanent ban plus a requirement that protective orders actually contain a finding of a credible threat to the safety of the person seeking the order – something not required to trigger the firearm prohibition under federal statute.

    4. If this story is true I’m done with the NRA,..again ! After their comments about Texas OpenCarry I cut up my membership card and sent it back to them. Then they apologized and I re-evaluated my position and had them send me another card. I don’t know what to think about the NRA anymore ! We are winning this battle with these tyrannists,why negotiate about anything ! Don’t give the son of a bitches an inch !

    Leave a Comment 4 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *