Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/8/2006 10:32:48 AM EDT
A woman, a batterer and a gun
Joan Ryan
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, January 8, 2006

Rebecca took out a life insurance policy on herself four years ago. She made her daughter the beneficiary. She was 51.

She believed that her husband was going to kill her. It was just a matter of time. She believes it still, even though she left him in 2001 and went underground through the California Confidential Address Program. She uses a phony address in Sacramento provided by the program (and is not using her real name for this column) to remain hidden.

Last summer, there were signs he had found her.

So Rebecca started carrying a gun inside a pouch in her purse.

What happened next is a sobering reminder of how the legal system is still struggling to understand the complex and vulnerable lives of battered women.

Rebecca had owned the gun since escaping from her husband. She bought it after the required 10-day waiting period and registered it in her name. She knew the police couldn't always be around to protect her. A gun leveled the playing field against a man bigger and stronger than she was. Maybe it would save her from becoming one of the 1,300 people killed in the United States each year in domestic violence attacks.

One evening last August, Rebecca was making the long drive home from Mill Valley, where she had to drop off some papers for a client. She stopped at an Albertsons supermarket in Half Moon Bay. She paid for her groceries, picked up the shopping bag and her wallet but left her purse at the end of the checkout counter.

The momentary lapse plunged her into a legal mess that has turned her from victim to criminal. She was arrested for carrying a loaded gun and sentenced last month by a San Mateo County court to 10 days in jail and 18 months' probation. Her conviction means she can no longer possess a gun, and it might jeopardize her participation in the Confidential Address Program.

"I'm 55 years old,'' Rebecca said by phone. "I've never committed a crime. I'm not a threat to anybody.''

Rebecca didn't think she needed a permit to carry a concealed weapon because California law waives the permit requirement for anyone who "reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order.'' Rebecca had a restraining order against her husband.

What she didn't know was that the restraining order, which she understood to be permanent, had expired in June.

"The restraining order would have been enough to take it to a jury trial,'' said Ben Lamarr, the lawyer who represented her in court. "It would have created a technical defense, but without that, she didn't have anything.''

Rebecca's appeal of the sentence was approved this week. It means she can spend her 10 days working in the jail but won't have to sleep there. Still, the sentence will cost her $20 per day plus an additional $60 fee, not to mention 10 days of lost wages, the gas to drive from the county where she lives to the San Mateo County Jail and the $160 fine she already paid.

"It would cost me less to do the time,'' Rebecca said.

More important, the conviction leaves Rebecca more vulnerable than ever to her abusive husband. For one, the district attorney's office mistakenly included her actual street address on all its documents, which are public record. The office was scrambling on Friday to delete the information.

And two, she now has no protection. (I wonder whether San Francisco voters considered domestic violence situations when they voted in November to ban all handguns and what consequences women like Rebecca might pay.)

"I'm usually not in the business of trying to get anybody's gun back, but with this conviction, she couldn't have it even in her house anymore,'' said attorney Myra Weiher, who is trying to get the conviction set aside.

"This is scary stuff she's facing (from her batterer). Guys like this don't behave in ways regular criminals do. They're stealth. They're all about terror.''

Rebecca knows she made a big mistake in leaving her purse with a loaded gun at a public place. Her lapse was a potentially dangerous one; it should not be minimized. But how do we balance her mistake against the danger she faces every day from a violent man who left her crushed and fearful, whose beatings and threats drove her into hiding?

The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal.

E-mail Joan Ryan at joanryan@sfchronicle.com


www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/BAGPDGKAG41.DTL

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:37:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:
The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense.



NO IT DOESN'T. The writer, even after all this, is still clueless.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:39:51 AM EDT

The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal.


This part pisses me off. Laws against CCW DON'T MAKE SENSE.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:40:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:
A woman, a batterer and a gun
Joan Ryan
San Francisco Chronicle



Read no further, that explains all.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:42:15 AM EDT
Thats what you get when you elct poodle groomers to public office and judgeships. A Country that goes to the dogs.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:49:11 AM EDT
I a way I hope her ex does something stupid due to the .gov indiference. Then she can sue the shit out of the .gov for fucking up her life even more.


And I REALY REALY hope nothing happens to her.

Bad spelling day for me
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:49:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Hipster:
The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense.



NO IT DOESN'T. The writer, even after all this, is still clueless.



Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 10:53:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 10:53:50 AM EDT by mcgrubbs]
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:03:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.



Yeah, it's a step in the right direction. But a lot of these anti-gun idiots don't care if innocent people can't defend themselves. They'd rather old ladies die in the street than you or I be able to own an "assault rifle". A lot of them are also the type to carry on about "fundamentalists" even though they take the same approach to gun control.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:09:06 AM EDT
You would think a 55yo woman could read the date on her restraining order?


BTW: this one sided article completely leaves out why the order was issued, did the husband even have a chance to defend himself in court, and neglects to mention that becuase of the order (which for all we know was based on BS) resulted in her husband being disarmed.

Sounds like Karma smacked her in the back of the head to me.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:09:34 AM EDT
my email to her:

Dear Joan -

I recently read this article online. Is was a great article until I read< "The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense."

I can not fathom how after writing this article you could possibly make that statement.

I really wish writers would do some research on gun related issues, instead of relying on their own limited and narrow-minded bias.

I hope in the future you will at least do some research on "feel good gun control measures" before you write an article. It would at least be the responsible thing to do.

Thank you for your time and attention,
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:11:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bblake00:
I a way I hope her ex does something stupid due to the .gov indiference.



Maybe now that the order expired he can get his guns back? I wonder if she cleaned out the bank accounts when she "left him" too?
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:12:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:
Sounds like that woman was screwed by the DA and the Judge.



It sounds like at one point she used the family court to her advantage and then got complacent.


Somewhere on Asault web there's a thread. "i just got my guns back and my lying wife got arrested for CCW."
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:14:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By Hipster:
The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense.



NO IT DOESN'T. The writer, even after all this, is still clueless.




That statement just blows my mind.

As I've said before - "Liberalism is a mental illness."


CMOS
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:15:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HarryStone:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.



Yeah, it's a step in the right direction. But a lot of these anti-gun idiots don't care if innocent people can't defend themselves.



Nothing in the world more antigun than disarming a person who has never been convicted of a crime based on the claims of an argry spouse alone.

If he really assaulted her then throw his ass in prison. But dont take away his guns rights becuasd she's "scared" of him.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:22:36 AM EDT
Hows the saying go...."better to be judged by 12, than carried by six"
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:27:46 AM EDT
Hows the saying go?

California sucks!
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:30:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By HarryStone:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.



Yeah, it's a step in the right direction. But a lot of these anti-gun idiots don't care if innocent people can't defend themselves.



Nothing in the world more antigun than disarming a person who has never been convicted of a crime based on the claims of an argry spouse alone.

If he really assaulted her then throw his ass in prison. But dont take away his guns rights becuasd she's "scared" of him.



Where in the column does it say that the husband had his guns and gun rights taken away? I didn't see any mention of the husband even owning guns. Did I miss something?
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:34:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 11:37:13 AM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By HarryStone:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.



Yeah, it's a step in the right direction. But a lot of these anti-gun idiots don't care if innocent people can't defend themselves.



Nothing in the world more antigun than disarming a person who has never been convicted of a crime based on the claims of an argry spouse alone.

If he really assaulted her then throw his ass in prison. But dont take away his guns rights becuasd she's "scared" of him.



Where in the column does it say that the husband had his guns and gun rights taken away?


She got a restraining order against him. Under federal law you may not possess firearms while under a domestivc violence restrsaining order. even one issued in your absense on the claims of a angry spouse alone.

For example. you come home and find your G/F or wife in bed with another man. You call her a whore. she applies for and receives a domestivc violence restraining order for "emotional abuse" (He calls me names and screams at me, he looked at me like he wanted to hurt me...). you lose your right to own a gun for 3 years.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 11:35:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By HarryStone:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.



Yeah, it's a step in the right direction. But a lot of these anti-gun idiots don't care if innocent people can't defend themselves.



Nothing in the world more antigun than disarming a person who has never been convicted of a crime based on the claims of an argry spouse alone.

If he really assaulted her then throw his ass in prison. But dont take away his guns rights becuasd she's "scared" of him.



Where in the column does it say that the husband had his guns and gun rights taken away?


She got a restraining order against him. Under federal law you may not possess firearms while under a domestivc violence restrsaining order. even one issued in your absense on the claims of a angry spouse alone.



Yep. IF you have any firearms. The article does not state that the guy owned guns. Does it?
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:08:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:
Sounds like that woman was screwed by the DA and the Judge.



It sounds like at one point she used the family court to her advantage and then got complacent.


Somewhere on Asault web there's a thread. "i just got my guns back and my lying wife got arrested for CCW."



Well, I can't help but agree that what 'goes around, comes around'. She also likely voted for Dems or RINOs so she only has herself to blame for the laws. Also, why didn't she apply for a CCW? Better to have a back-up reason for possessing a CCW than not to.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:21:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:
Sounds like that woman was screwed by the DA and the Judge.



It sounds like at one point she used the family court to her advantage and then got complacent.


Somewhere on Asault web there's a thread. "i just got my guns back and my lying wife got arrested for CCW."



Well, I can't help but agree that what 'goes around, comes around'. She also likely voted for Dems or RINOs so she only has herself to blame for the laws. Also, why didn't she apply for a CCW? Better to have a back-up reason for possessing a CCW than not to.



Somethings about thisa story make me wonder. I've seen many domestic orders - in NY their called orders of protection. They have clealy labeled expiration dates, I'm not sure how women get these orders and then don't bother to read them.

Either way, It's total BS. But it's The Peoples Republic of Kommiefornia, and chances are that she did indeed vote for Democrats. Being the prick that I am, I would even ask her this and if she said "Yes", then I would tell her to her face that she's getting what she deserves.


-K
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:26:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Hows the saying go?

California sucks!



I believe the actual saying is, "California sucks ass!"

I know, I used to live there.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:30:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yossarian:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Hows the saying go?

California sucks!



I believe the actual saying is, "California sucks ass!"

I know, I used to live there.



You and me both.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 12:54:53 PM EDT
Some of you guys are something else.

With no basis in facts as presented in the column, you assume that this woman is a democrat-voting, neighbor-screwing, evil bitch who doesn't deserve any right to self-defense while her husband is a proud gun owner who has been wronged by his spouse and the legal system.

You're just as biased as the author of the column.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 1:26:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:

The law against carrying concealed guns makes good sense. But so many women every year are killed by their abusive boyfriends and husbands. Restraining orders, as we know, can't stop them. The police often can't stop them. I don't know what the solution is. But something's wrong when, in trying to keep herself alive, the terrorized woman becomes the criminal.




To some people the fact that Concealed Carry actually reduces violent crime is counter intuitive and liberals are uncomfortable coming to grips with such a reality. Because it conflicts with their set of ideological beliefs, they become mentally parallized and stick their heads in the ground.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 1:30:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By HarryStone:

Originally Posted By Hipster:

Yep, still clueless. But this is a tiny crack in the wall of liberal stupidity.

A liberal writer for a liberal paper in a liberal city produces a column that is sympathetic to the plight of a female gun owner. Some women (and girly-men) will read this and see the logic of a battered woman defending herself with a firearm. The common sense of this scenario shines through the bias of the writer.



Yeah, it's a step in the right direction. But a lot of these anti-gun idiots don't care if innocent people can't defend themselves.



Nothing in the world more antigun than disarming a person who has never been convicted of a crime based on the claims of an argry spouse alone.

If he really assaulted her then throw his ass in prison. But dont take away his guns rights becuasd she's "scared" of him.



Where in the column does it say that the husband had his guns and gun rights taken away?


She got a restraining order against him. Under federal law you may not possess firearms while under a domestivc violence restrsaining order. even one issued in your absense on the claims of a angry spouse alone.



Yep. IF you have any firearms. The article does not state that the guy owned guns. Does it?



I think that was kinda his point - the article is so one-sided and short of actual information that we don't really know what the situation is. Maybe she is a poor, battered wife who never thought much about politics, but is desperate for a little protection from a psycho ex. Or maybe she's the crazy bitch who screwed her husband over every way she and her lawyer could think of.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 2:27:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By mcgrubbs:
Sounds like that woman was screwed by the DA and the Judge.



It sounds like at one point she used the family court to her advantage and then got complacent.


Somewhere on Asault web there's a thread. "i just got my guns back and my lying wife got arrested for CCW."



Well, I can't help but agree that what 'goes around, comes around'. She also likely voted for Dems or RINOs so she only has herself to blame for the laws. Also, why didn't she apply for a CCW? Better to have a back-up reason for possessing a CCW than not to.




I was thinking the same thing myself: she was a liberal until she got in a tight situation. Of course, I don't know for sure, but it is very common.

In California, though maybe not in San Franshitsco (I love the city, but the majority of the people in it are assh*les; would be a great place if depopulated) the threats, as evidenced by the issuance of the restraining order in the first place, would be a legitimate "statement of cause or reason" for a CCW application. That's the biggest sticking point in most counties other than the ones where they outright stonewall it except for politicians or judges (for example, San Francisco and Los Angeles). She probably could have got the permit in San Diego with the cause (as used in the Restraining Order).
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 2:35:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 2:39:45 PM EDT
She made the right choice. Break the law but be able to defend your life or follow the law and possibly lose your life.

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:05:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hipster:
Some of you guys are something else.

With no basis in facts as presented in the column, you assume that this woman is a democrat-voting, neighbor-screwing, evil bitch who doesn't deserve any right to self-defense while her husband is a proud gun owner who has been wronged by his spouse and the legal system.

You're just as biased as the author of the column.



Yep and being a predominately male ultraconservative to libertarian gun board we are entitled to our bias. The journalist however has an obligation to ignore his and report both sides of the strory.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:30:34 PM EDT
What is wrong with our justice system? This is a liberal's delima. How to fight back against abusive men but at the same time still be against guns. You can't have it both ways. Here is a letter I wrote to the Hartford Courant and it was printed in July 2005. Bags

The Toll Of Domestic Violence
July 15, 2005

The Editorial " The Toll Of Domestic Violence", July 15, 2005, mentions some measures to help stem the tide of domestic violence, especially when a restraining order is enacted. All these proposals sound good on paper, but just like the paper they are written on, they are absolutely worthless in stopping someone who wants to kill you.

The General Assembly, the courts, and the police fail to mention the one thing that can actually protect women: a firearm. With proper training, a woman can use this “great equalizer” to thwart any man wanting to do her harm. I know it’s not even a consideration of many people because of the negative press that firearms get, but is it better to be killed without one?


The police can’t always be there to protect you, and they usually arrive after you’re dead. A recent Supreme Court case also said they can’t be held liable for not protecting and enforcing a restraining order.

Holding up a restringing order in some man’s face when he’s about to kill you is absolutely ridiculous. Holding up a gun and protecting yourself is not. Unfortunately too many people won’t even consider this option. There is a bill in Rhode Island that would make it easier for women to obtain a gun to protect themselves against an abuser. I think it’s time for Connecticut to do the same.



Link Posted: 1/8/2006 4:36:38 PM EDT
I think it just comes down to a choice of being judged by 12 or carried by 6.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:55:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Hipster:
Some of you guys are something else.

With no basis in facts as presented in the column, you assume that this woman is a democrat-voting, neighbor-screwing, evil bitch who doesn't deserve any right to self-defense while her husband is a proud gun owner who has been wronged by his spouse and the legal system.

You're just as biased as the author of the column.



Yep and being a predominately male ultraconservative to libertarian gun board we are entitled to our bias. The journalist however has an obligation to ignore his and report both sides of the strory.



This is not a news article. It's an opinion piece by the columnist. She has no obligation to report anything.
Top Top