Judge Orders Guns Returned to Blind FL Man convicted of Domestic Violence
Skip Intro featured this article Februrary 24, 2013 and it was promoted to LGF’s front page.
“Blind Man Acquitted in Fatal Shooting Gets Guns Back”
The situation in which a vision impaired person has firearms is unusual, but not illegal. There are variations on “visually impaired” that the word “blind” does not describe acurately.
What is SHOULD BE illegal is that a person with a history of violent behavior, alcohol use while handling firearms and Domestic Violence is allowed to have his firearms returned time and time again.
This individual, John Wayne Rogers, was convicted of Domestic Violence and did serve time:
Rogers, who was blinded in a work-related accident in 2001, has an extensive history of violence. In 2010, following another night of drinking, Rogers shot at his cousin and roommate, Michael Rogers, 15 times with a handgun. Michael Rogers was not shot, and John Rogers eventually plead no contest to one count of unlawfully displaying a firearm, for which he was placed on probation.
That probation was revoked when, in 2011, he punched a woman, which led to him spending 71 days in jail on domestic violence charges.
According to the Justice Department, Title 7:
The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
This bill passed with almost unanimous support and represents Congress’s recognition that “anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms.” Congressional Record, p. S11878, September 30, 1996. This new provision affects law enforcement in three interrelated ways. First, it will assist in preventing those individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for domestic violence from obtaining a firearm. Second, it will assist law enforcement by providing a tool for the removal of firearms from certain explosive domestic situations thus decreasing the possibility of deadly violence. Finally, it will serve as a federal prosecution tool in certain situations where alternatives have failed.
So, it would seem, that the Blind man should not be in possession of his firearms, not because he is blind, but because he has been convicted of Domestic Violence. The firearms *should have* been confiscated in 2011. Yet, here we are in 2014 and he has shown repeatedly that he is not a responsible firearm owner/user and once again, a Judge has misapplied the law.
Perhaps this is an issue of State vs. Federal crime? What is clear is that the NRA has been right all along. We don’t need more gun laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have.
Perhaps we need to focus on taking Domestic Violence seriously:
Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2
In 2002-11, about 18% of female and 27% of male intimate partner violence victimizations involved an offender with a weapon