(Annie Black) – In the past, if a person was convicted by a judge – without being offered a jury trial – on a misdemeanor domestic battery charge, they lost their gun rights.
But the Supreme Court ruled not long ago that you can’t take away someone’s gun rights unless the accused is afforded a jury trial. I agree.
AB42 would prohibit taking away anyone’s gun rights for domestic battery unless they are convicted by a JURY. And it has to be for the actual use of force against someone, not just getting into a shouting match with your spouse over whose turn it is to do the dishes.
However, if someone IS convicted of domestic battery by a jury, not a judge, then they WOULD lose their gun rights.
I don’t think someone’s gun rights should be taken away from them unless convicted by a jury of their peers. So I voted “Yes” on the bill.
However, some of my colleagues voted against AB42, arguing that if we didn’t pass the bill then NO ONE would lose their gun rights since they wouldn’t be able to have a jury trial.
I understand the point. However, if someone is convicted by a jury – not merely accused – of committing domestic battery, I’m not prepared to say they should automatically be given their gun rights back.
And contrary to a claim made by others, this is NOT a “red flag” law.
Red flag laws are directed at people who someone suspects *may* – sometime in the future – commit a crime. That’s not what this is. This bill only deals with people who are CONVICTED – by a JURY – of domestic battery.
Now…maybe I’m missing something. It happens. Especially with so many bills being voted on so quickly with so little notice.
If so, there’s a chance the bill will be amended in the Senate and sent back to us in the Assembly for a second vote on the amended version.
So if you have any arguments against the bill I haven’t covered here, by all means share them with me now before it possibly comes up again and I’ll take them into consideration.
And thanks for you input!