What happened to “innocent until proven guilty” or due process? Correct me if I am wrong, but the didn’t the state pass a “red flag” (extreme risk protection order) law last year? How is this different?

An allegation should not be the basis for someone (man or woman) to loose rights.

This is one measure which can definitely save lives.

Who, in their right mind, could possibly be against this law? The ‘gun owners of vt’ need to take away their ‘no compromise’ philosophy and look at this realistically.

In the case of domestic violence an allegation is enough. The court would have issued a relief from abuse order. Police should get a search warrant to identify where the weapons are and seize them.

The so-called Charleston loophole in background checks is NOT a loophole. The law requires that IF a person is not approved (not denied but, not approved) during his/her initial BC that the Feds have 3 days to ‘show cause’ for that denial. If we close that ‘loophole’ then the Feds could deny everyone forever if they don’t have to have an actual reason for denial. Wake up people.

Vermont creates a culture that grows many of it’s own problems.
You can see it here every single day.

Who could possibly be against this law someone asks? How about the individual who is falsely accused by an angry partner? I know, you’ll say it happens very rarely. Show me statistics that say the claim to rarity is real and we can have that discussion. Is removing due process in any situation a good thing? Same issue with red flag laws and why they too will be struck down. An accused has a constitutional right to confront their accuser. As well to inspect the evidence. Not to mention equal access to the courts and a timely hearing. If this were about anything other than forearms, people would be screaming in the streets. If you had no due process to oppose another right being stripped from you, let’s say free speech, the song would change. Only firearms ever receive this kind of unconstitutional treatment. Perhaps a better approach would be to lock up an individual deemed a threat until such time as a hearing can be held. Providing there is enough supportive evidence for such a case.

“The legislation, H.610, would prevent alleged domestic abusers from purchasing or keeping guns ”

We are all entitled to due process.

Is Ms. Grad really suggesting we give up our protected right to due process? Perhaps, she isn’t cut out to chair the “judiciary” committee.

“Gun Owners of VT – dedicated to a no-compromise position against gun control.” (from their website)

If doctors and children are expected to help deprive someone of due process and civil rights, why does the legislation not apply to attorneys and other officers of the court as well?
Surely, lawyers are in a similar or better position to prevent crime. If Mr Headley’s lawyer had helped get him to turn over his guns, Ms Lumumba might still be alive.
Maybe they could just rewrite this legislation to encourage everybody to inform on everyone else.

Likely unconstitutional. There’s a lower standard to get a relief from abuse order than to get a criminal conviction. This article also left out the fact that Maxine Grad apparently just walked out of the committee when some people testified against it. Pretty unprofessional behavior.

Leroy Headley was well known to law enforcement as a troublemaker. He was also known by his intimate partner as a man capable of serious domestic violence based on prior threats and physical abuse. There was an attempt to restrain him by our system of relief from abuse orders. The law would require he stay away yet the law could not physically prevent contact. For such a lawless individual, any law that deprived him of one particular tool would simply make him move on to the next option that could be purchased at a hardware or department store or found in the garage or kitchen, such as a blunt object or blade.
“Suspected” and “accused” of domestic abuse should never be the grounds of depriving any individual of their Constitutional Rights. Anyone is free to make such allegations against another out of pure vindictiveness with little repercussion for a false claim. A high level of due process should precede ANY deprivation of Constitutional Rights.

I am going on memory here. Leroy Headley was ordered to surrender his firearm by a judge. His lawyer was suppose to hand this firearm to police but never did so. The rest is history. I am going with systemic failure.

The 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision held that the Washington DC ban on all usable (able to be fired) handgun possession was unconstitutional. The decision held that the right of an individual to possess a firearm (handgun) was decreed in the 2nd amendment. That was a limited decision. It did not address laws based on specific circumstances, such as a Court order that a specific individual must surrender all firearms. I could not find any SCOTUS rulings that decree a Court of competent jurisdiction, acting with cause, cannot make such an order absent a criminal conviction or that such an order denies due process or any right(s) conferred by the 2nd amendment.

Cops beat their partners. Take their guns away. Great law. Keep it up.

If only Headley had been doling out cannabis instead of violence then the authorities would have gone after him hammer & tongs. There is something seriously wrong with a system that ignores the violence perpetrated by the likes of Headley.

What is the problem we are trying to solve? How about if somebody is a credible threat, the police hold them in custody? They then get due process–including a trial by their peers–and the aggrieved party knows the offender is locked up pending that trial.

A gun can kill, but so can a meat clever, a golf club, a knife, and so on. Are we interested in the underlying problem, or in virtue-signalling? I can’t tell here.

I find this hard to swallow. My firearm has never acted poorly, never just gone off, never hurt anyone and unless I am not threatened with my life never will.
This is another feel good bill intruding on personal liberty. There are also false dv reports. How can a woman protect herself from a perpetrator with all the new laws being proposed? Certainly a piece of paper is not going to work, or a call to a rural police faction, or any feel good form or bill. A person who’s mission is to hurt or kill anyone is not going to be stopped by a lawmaker saying it is so.
You talk about women’s and men’s equality and rights, the simple action of being able to protect yourself from harm should not be dictated by others, especially those who are clueless about the real world.
Pretending you can rely on someone else to come to your aid is not only unrealistic it is stupid.
We are not weak wanting to rely on someone else to dictate our protection. Maybe Ms Grad they should call you.

Devil’s Advocate…..so this law passes, someone who is a threat loses their weapons. If that person is convinced they are going to go off the deep end and shoot someone, they are now more irritated. What is to stop someone intent on killing another from robbing their neighbor, their hunting buddies, or a gun store. I’m sure a guy about to kill someone and go to jail for life is not worried about picking up a charge for breaking and entering. Now what?? This law, like all laws, is for law abiding members of society. That is why they are called criminals.