Domestic abusers should surrender guns

Keeping guns out of the hands of people who have shown violent tendencies should transcend politics.

On Sept. 12, 2016, Susan Hoke was murdered by her estranged husband, Scott, in the kitchen of the home they used to share.

She had suffered abuse at his hands in the past and had a protection-from-abuse order against him. But, in the end, it did not stop her estranged husband from shooting her and then turning the gun on himself. It was beyond senseless. It was avoidable. In Pennsylvania, while judges have the discretion to order those who have PFAs filed against them to surrender any firearms they own, it is not required. It is not automatic.

That is, to put it bluntly, insane.

Twelve states explicitly require anyone subject to a protection order to surrender his or her firearms. In many of those states, it is automatic.

In others, the requirement doesn’t kick in until the defendant has a hearing on the matter.

Either way, such a law would seem like a common sense measure to protect people who have been abused and threatened by domestic partners.

It just seems like common sense; it seems like absolute sense, the kind of law that even the most fervent advocate for gun owners’ rights could get behind.

Keeping guns out of the hands of people who have shown a propensity toward violence should be something that transcends politics or any belief that the Second Amendment gives people the absolute right to bear arms.

Several states that have passed such legislation have done so even as they faced opposition from gun enthusiasts.

Such a law is necessary. We have seen much too much carnage arise from relationships gone beyond toxic.

Yes, the NRA’s mantra is “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” But guns make it a lot easier. Mixing guns with the heated emotional stakes involved in domestic situations is a recipe for tragedy. It is that simple. Such a law could be seen as a restriction on gun rights, particularly in light of the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which seemed to conclude that any attempt to regulate firearms violates the Second Amendment, a ruling that ignored decades of precedent.

The court has previously held that the clause of the amendment that calls for a “well-regulated militia” permits the government to regulate gun ownership.

And there are laws that do restrict gun ownership. Convicted felons, for instance, are not permitted to own firearms, a law nobody objects to, save convicted felons.

It should be the same for those adjudicated of posing a serious risk to a domestic partner.

Pennsylvania has a chance to set this straight. State Sen. Tom Killion, a Delaware County Republican, has introduced a bill that would require those subject to permanent protection-from-abuse orders to surrender their firearms to law enforcement or a licensed firearms dealer.

They would not be permitted to simply give them to a family member or a friend, as the law permits

Keeping guns out of the hands of people who have shown a propensity toward violence should transcend politics.

now.

It makes sense. How could anyone in their right mind object? Well, glad you asked. The gun-rights group called Firearms Owners Against Crime has labeled the bill as “anti-gun,” offering, among others, the ridiculous argument that abusive spouses should be able to hand their weapons over to a relative or friend to make sure they are well taken care of. Please. This is not a Second Amendment issue.

It is, as Sen. Killion put it, “a domestic violence bill.” It should pass. And the sooner, the better. It’s too late to save Susan Hoke, and the many others who have senselessly died at the hands of armed abusers.

But it’s not too late to maybe stop the next one.