opinion

Restraining orders and guns shouldn't mix

It may be an exaggeration to say that some Michigan lawmakers want to arm abusers.

But not by much.

Michigan's Legislature has approved a law, ostensibly aimed at standardizing the way concealed-weapons permits are issued, that also eliminates a state provision barring individuals subject to a personal protection order from obtaining such permits.

Personal protection orders, also called restraining orders, are typically issued by a court when there's reason to believe a person is in danger. The subject of the order is generally barred from contacting the threatened person, visiting the person's home or place of employment, stalking or assaultive behavior. The order can restrict possession or purchase of firearms. Such an order establishes that a dangerous situation exists, and gives police the groundwork for intervention if the order is violated. It's an imperfect tool, but it's an important piece in the incredibly messy process of protecting victims of stalking or abuse.

For years, Michigan personal protection orders have barred subjects from receiving a concealed-pistol license, a permit that requires the applicant to take a training course as part of the approval process, among other requirements.

The presumption in Michigan courts has been that it's better to err on the side of caution. If Gov. Rick Snyder signs Senate Bill 789, that will change, chipping away at the protections for women, who account for a majority of personal protection orders.

It's a malevolent shift in position, one that gun advocates say is justified by the right to bear a concealed weapon in most public places. Even a principled interpretation of the Second Amendment needs to be weighed against the facts about the national murder rate. That 37.5% of female murder victims are killed by their boyfriend or husband shows that, statistically, women are significantly more likely to be killed by a partner than the reverse.

Snyder is reviewing SB 789, his spokeswoman said, and the governor should make a decision next week.

For our anti-bullying governor, vetoing this legislation should be a no-brainer. It's difficult to imagine the governor could reconcile his interest in the plight of folks who have been bullied or abused with the provisions contained in this law — provisions, it is worth noting, that the bill's sponsor didn't recognize as parts of the legislation when questioned by a Free Press reporter.

The effort to standardize the concealed-pistol permit process, largely by eliminating county gun boards, is something we could get behind. As a rule, we support the even application of policy and procedure. But Michigan's current gun laws were designed to standardize the process.

We suspect this shift has more to do with a theoretical scenario popular in certain circles: A vindictive ex-wife or girlfriend obtaining a PPO to complicate an ex-partner's life, rather than from a true threat.

"This legislation seems to reflect that bias," said Judge Edward Sosnick, who spent 24 years on the bench in Oakland County Circuit Court. "And what they forget is that when I would issue PPOs and the woman is crying and shaking in front of you, that's when you want to err for safety purposes."

Any individual subject to a personal protection order has the right to a hearing to have that order set aside, but in Sosnick's experience, "the vast majority are never contested."

And the number of personal protection orders that shouldn't have been issued, he said, "pales in comparison to the number that don't fit in that category."

If Snyder signs this law, it would still be possible for a judge to include a firearm restriction in a personal protection order, Sosnick said — but it's a change in philosophy, one that says the right to carry a concealed weapon is more important than the safety of women and children.

We don't buy it. And Snyder shouldn't, either.