Apparently this is a new policy in Travis County that a person out on bond for suspected domestic violence must now surrender their firearms. I find this absurd. The person has only been accused, which could be a false allegation and now they have to surrender their firearms or go back to jail?

https://www.kvue.com/article/n...7f-a6f1-ba0e1dc45e8b


LOCAL NEWS
Under new Travis County policy, anyone accused of family violence must surrender guns while on bond

The new policy particularly targets those accused of family violence.


Under new Travis County policy, anyone accused of family violence must surrender guns while on bond

AUSTIN, Texas — In order to address gun violence in the Austin area, the Travis County district attorney has announced a new policy that aims to restrict gun access to many people who are out on bond for a crime.

Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza announced May 12 that for a wide variety of cases, defendants will be required to surrender guns as a condition of their bond. They will also be required to not be in possession of a gun while on bond.

In particular, Garza is targeting those accused in family violence cases, because they are "particularly at risk" of using a gun to injure or kill someone.

"In 2019, in Texas, 185 Texans were killed by their intimate partners in 2019," the Office of the District Attorney stated. "Of those deaths, 63% of men and 53% of women used a firearm to commit a homicide."

“All of our criminal prosecutors have been trained on the new policy and lethality assessment to ensure that we are quickly identifying cases that pose a public safety concern,” said Travis County Attorney Delia Garza. “Timely relinquishment of firearms is an essential dynamic of violence prevention. We must work together to ensure that individuals subject to a weapon forfeiture order surrender their firearms immediately.”

Here's a breakdown of the following situations where a defendant will be required to surrender guns as part of their bond:

All family violence cases, regardless of whether a firearm was used in the instant offense

All cases where a firearm was used in the course of the offense

Any case where the victim has reason to believe that the defendant has a firearm and is concerned that the firearm will be used against the victim or another person

Any case where the defendant has made threats of violence against another person or entity

Any case where competence is at issue or concerns have been raised about that the defendant is suicidal or exhibiting other signs of a mental health disorder or disease that brings into question the safety of firearm possession

Any case, even if not within the above scenarios, where an ADA believes that a firearm surrender is necessary for public safety

If a defendant about to be released on bond meets any of those requirements, their bond will require that their license to carry a gun be suspended. Defendants will also be required to surrender all guns and not have guns on their person while the case is pending.

If a defendant violates that bond order, their bond could be revoked.

”This firearm surrender policy has finally come to fruition thanks to the County and District Attorney’s offices,” said Precinct 5 Constable Carlos Lopez. “I look forward to working together in conjunction with all other city and county agencies to do everything we can to keep families safe.”

Recently, a former Travis County detective was arrested after he was accused of shooting and killing his ex-wife, daughter and his daughter's boyfriend. Stephen Nicholas Broderick was out on bond on a charge of sexual assault of a child. His GPS tracking device was removed months before their deaths, even as his daughter and ex-wife had said they feared for their safety.

According to the Austin Police Department's most recent gun violence report, which addresses the fourth quarter of 2020, violence has risen steadily over the past few years along with Austin's population boom. An initiative commissioned by now-interim Austin police chief Joe Chacon could play a role in how the APD addresses recent increases in gun violence.

This is a bond requirement, the other option is to sit in jail until your court date.

When I was a cop in NC, surrendering your firearm was status quo since before I started in 99 if you were being charged with domestic violence assault....magistrate just checked a box and the sheriff went with you to collect your gun until the court date.

I don’t have a problem with it. The judges didn’t do it if Joe citizen went to the magistrate and swore out the warrant against his significant other or vise verse, but if the police brought in the suspect and here was signs of injury the suspect most certainly got his guns taken away.

But we all know you don’t need a gun to kill someone.

I was once ordered to seize and secure a fellow sailors guns when he found his wife screwing around on him with another sailor. I followed the order and when I was done I told the captain that I felt his order was foolish. When he said “why”, I told him that the guy still had a baseball bat, truck and myriad other items he could kill her with and that his order was just a feel good order to Cover his own ass.

So just out of curiosity, who collects your guns and are they responsible for storage and any damage? Some people have quite large and valuable collections which I would hate to see tossed in a pile in an evidence room.

Not that uncommon of a bond requirement. Virtually every crime of violence has that bond condition. I’ve been po-leece for 25 years and that’s the way it has always been.

quote:

Originally posted by kxc223:
So just out of curiosity, who collects your guns and are they responsible for storage and any damage? Some people have quite large and valuable collections which I would hate to see tossed in a pile in an evidence room.

In most places, a family member comes to collect them.

All the more reason to have a few guns off the books and a safe deposit box, as well as a very trusted friend.

I think at least one reason why there's concern that it could be abused in this case is that it's obviously a reaction to the probability of permitless carry being legalized in the current session of the legislature.

They're slapping back at us, and (being the twits they are) they're going to feel the need to make further dramatic gestures over time. At the same time, the notion among the populace that it's OK to try to use the government to punish someone you don't like is being fostered, to the extent it's not being directly fed, by recent large-scale influxes of Californians and relatively young adults who'd like to be Californians.

It's all to easy to see this being used in Travis County by either government officials (including judges) or private citizens out of malice or even petty spite. After all, if anyone knows that some individual carries, then it's all too easy to single out the individual's gun ownership as a way to harass them. In that sense, this stuff is a deliberate attempt to put a big red flag on every handgun that gets carried in public.

If the DA gets wind, your bond gets revoked, and you wait for your trial in the county jail. And, of course, this is about domestics, so if your wife knows about your stash, so will the DA.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
All the more reason to have a few guns off the books and a safe deposit box, as well as a very trusted friend.

I would be willing to bet that many (probably most, likely nearly all) persons who are arrested on domestic violence related charges are served with a no contact/protective/restraining order at their initial court appearance.

Those people are already prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC 922(g)(8), which is a felony with a statutory minimum sentence of five years and likely an equivalent Texas penal code.

In other words, all that is likely happening here is a bond condition is being placed that requires the person to not violate another. If anything, it seems like grandstanding to me.

This was our policy in another Texas jurisdiction. It was near to the end of my time so I was only involved in just a few.

I'm not going to argue for or against this because it just was what it was - a policy I had to follow.

As I have said so many times before, officers are troops who have to follow orders or they won't be officers anymore. That's why you see so many in the media now not taking action against rioters, being more strict with regular citizens than with the BLM, ANTIFA and the Defund the Police crowd.

Generally, officers have freedom to go out and about and enforce the laws, and supervisors normally want to see some gainful work performed. In this new Anti-America we live in now, cameras, social media, optics, social justice, etc are just some of the factors negatively influencing LE agency managers.

I don't know if I will live long enough to ever see the pendulum swing back the other way where it is open season on ALL law breakers. I think those days, at least for the more populated areas, is long past.

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
- a policy I had to follow.

As I have said so many times before, officers are troops who have to follow orders or they won't be officers anymore.

Kinda like why I'm not a teacher anymore.

I was "just following orders" until I didn't.

I was just wondering.... let's say the average member here gets one of these notices and complies with such ... how much is it going to cost the local law enforcement to actually do this.... what I'm saying is they are not going to be collecting one gun.. .they need to collect, catalog and store all the guns the person owns.... let alone return them all later.

Couple years ago a county sheriff here in S.C. found something like 5,000 stolen guns stored on a guy's property... it pretty much destroyed their budget trying to deal with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I was just wondering.... let's say the average member here gets one of these notices and complies with such ... how much is it going to cost the local law enforcement to actually do this....

When I saw it ordered, the deputy had the guy call someone to come get the guns, the deputy also read the court order to said friend and then took down his info, and told said friend or family member he couldn’t give them back w/o a order from the court.

Sheriff didn’t get into the business of storing, cataloging, damaging the guns. Cost effective. But if a gun was seized it was boxed just like regular evidence and entered into the property system, and basically thrown into a room and left alone until the judge figured it out at the guys court date.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
- a policy I had to follow.

As I have said so many times before, officers are troops who have to follow orders or they won't be officers anymore.

Kinda like why I'm not a teacher anymore.

I was "just following orders" until I didn't.

And "I was just following orders" ceased to be a valid defense after the Nuremburg Trials.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by kxc223:
So just out of curiosity, who collects your guns and are they responsible for storage and any damage? Some people have quite large and valuable collections which I would hate to see tossed in a pile in an evidence room.

In most places, a family member comes to collect them.

Here, it will be the constable’s office.

“Garza announced that defendants will surrender their guns to the precinct 5 constable's office and get a receipt. If they can reclaim their guns later, they will show that receipt. “Starting today, we have protocols in place to ensure that surrender happens and to ensure that those firearms are safely stored.” Link

I think it would probably be prudent to avoid the problem altogether by never getting involved with a “domestic partner” that might go nuts and decide to screw you over by fabricating an accusation.

If you have been arrested and charged with domestic violence, then there is most likely also a protective order against you which can result in firearm confiscation with a judge's approval.

Most judges approve protective orders ex parte and the defendant needs to request a hearing to contest.

The sad part is protective orders are often used offensively by divorce lawyers.

In Colorado LGS are allowed to store the weapons for you. Depending on the shop it might be a better alternative to the police evidence room.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
In Colorado LGS are allowed to store the weapons for you. Depending on the shop it might be a better alternative to the police evidence room.

Roll the dice.
If you have a handful of nice blasters with optics and such, good chance either the idiot in the cage or, the shop fool, is going to finger-fuck your tools and put a scratch or, damage something.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by ftttu:
- a policy I had to follow.

As I have said so many times before, officers are troops who have to follow orders or they won't be officers anymore.

Kinda like why I'm not a teacher anymore.

I was "just following orders" until I didn't.

And "I was just following orders" ceased to be a valid defense after the Nuremburg Trials.

You’re an officer with an agency in Texas who has a policy similar to the OP’s or the one I retired from. You’re a family guy with a mortgage, car payments, in the hole on a credit card or two just dreading the thought of how much college is going to cost.

You go about your daily patrol being proactive as well as taking calls for service. Your next call for service is a family disturbance/assault in progress with the female half heard screaming at male half to not hit her anymore. You arrive moments later where you find children crying and a woman with disheveled hair and clothing bleeding from her nose. She gives you the story of the assault and says her husband just left in their blah blah vehicle.

You put out info on radio, and an assisting unit is heard on the radio stopping a vehicle a mile or two away matching the description. Time forward to family male half transported back to your location where you have female half’s statement which includes her desire to press charges for the physical assault on her causing bodily injury and for threatening her life by pressing one of his many black pistols to her head during the assault.

Now, your assisting officer has transported the male half to the station for you while you finish up with taking images and recovering any related evidence. After that, it is now time for you jack-booted true Nazi self gets to the meat and potatoes of why you’re really there in the first place. Your excitement ramps up while you ask about the male half’s firearms. You try to hide this excitement while you explain you are duty-bound to ‘confiscate’ all of the male half’s firearms for her protection.

You are led to the stash where you collect them all as trained by the Reich, and head off to the station after providing the female half a receipt. I can go on and on, but I hope the point gets through that the protection of an innocent(s) in family violence situations may just trump an offender’s 2A right. As I’ve said, I won’t argue this policy since it was what it was/is what it is.

I don’t know any officer who likes calls for service since the vast majority are negative, and family fights are some that are highly dreaded. There is already a lot of work involved in addition to the sights and feelings an officer is exposed to, and then they add the additional workload of taking firearms away in situations like my narrative. Donuts and wasting gas is WAY more appealing, but now thinking back, it was a tossup between a chocolate frosted donut or being a Nazi.