Posted on 04/04/2019 5:36:23 AM PDT by ek_hornbeck
Congressional Democrats and the NRA are at odds over a provision of Democrats' Violence Against Women Act that would keep people with certain criminal convictions from getting guns.
In what has been referred to as the “boyfriend loophole,” those convicted of abusing or stalking a partner would be blocked from owning a gun.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Most people agree that violent felons shouldn't be allowed to keep and bear arms, but that's not what this is about. This would bar anyone convicted of misdemeanor "domestic abuse" from ever owning a gun. These days, a misdemeanor "domestic abuse" conviction could be over something as trivial as a smack across the face, or an angry shouting match (for which it's always assumed that the husband is at fault). People have gotten misdemeanor domestic abuse charges on no basis other than a woman claiming that she felt intimidated and threatened by her husband's words or tone of voice.
The Commies just keep at it. Any way to TAKE YOUR GUN RIGHTS away. Right out of Karl Marx...
A domestic violence conviction already disqualifies you from owning a gun. See: Laughton Amendment.
Doesn't that only apply to felony domestic violence convictions (i.e. where you cause significant bodily injury - equivalent to what would get you a felonious assault conviction if it weren't a domestic situation)?
“Closing a loophole” is what they call it now almost every time they make a gun grab, To the gun grabbers, the entire 2nd Amendment is a “loophole” they want to close.
The woman leaves.
If you feel you are in a hostile environment, you depart. That is what adults do. And you prepare your life for that possibility. You put yourself with hostile people.
All people are innocent before proven guilty.
That is due process.
Upon conviction, the perp, male or female is removed.
Very few liberals come out and say that they want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment outright. They either twist it to mean that it only applies to the National Guard, or just keep chipping away at it with ever more restrictive provisions on who can own a gun.
Interestingly, two liberal activists who openly support amending the Constitution to revoke the 2nd are Alan Dershowitz and former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Unlike other anti-gun activists, they know and acknowledge that the 2nd protects gun ownership, and that there's only one thing that can be done about it in accordance with the Constitution and the law.
Nope. Lautenberg amendment was an abhorant piece of legislation. First, it made you a "prohibited person" from buying/owning/selling/possessing any type 1 or 2 firearm if convicted of a MISDEMEANOR crime of "domestic violence" (which could include a slap in the face of your roommate in college, etc...not just your significant other).
Second, and worse, the law was made retroactive, so 30 years ago, when times and prosecutor conduct were different, you could lose your right to bear arms.
Dozens of soldiers in the 1st Infantry division, including a CSM lost their RKBA. They had to reclass to be on a crew served weapon or something. They couldn't touch an M9 or M16/M4.
Really, it should only be for FELONS.
IIRC it's already been decided by the courts.
nope, specifically misdemeanor domestic abuse, a democrat former senator’s name is attached to that amendment.
The NRA should not be involved unless they are willing to unravel all gun law they have previously been around for since 1887.
Whatever happened to the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws? The law should have been blocked by the courts for this reason alone.
Judges will always remove the man first, because they are dividers, conquerers and conformists.
But both spouses have due process.
Judges do not care about the “victim” woman, they care to destroy the male and make the woman dependent on the State. Judges replace the father. It is their harem.
Which leads to further control, removing guns. If they really cared, all knives and clubs would be removed.
Democrats Lie.
Can we add “Public Servants found liable for sexual harassment or civil rights violations” to it??
I saw a girl take a shotgun into the LGS for repair. She was with her boyfriend. While there, she decided to buy another shotgun. Denied, for some fight that they’d had. She laughed it off. Until she was told that she couldn’t get the other one back.
1871
Very few liberals really want to eliminate the 2nd Amendment altogether.
What they do want is the European/Australian form of gun ownership, where you must jump through government-mandated and expensive hoops first, then are allowed to own a few styles of bolt action hunting rifles or non-magazine fed shotgun.
No handguns at all, of course, unless you're a bona fide handgun competitor, and the pistol is kept locked up at a shooting club.
It won’t end up being “convicted”; it will become accused.
They're willing to take your membership fees, but I don't see them actively challenging unconstitutional gun laws. What is it that some states fail to comprehend about "shall not be infringed"?
Even though we respect Dershowtiz for his defense of Pres. Trump, I know he can be one sorry assed confused lib.
he’s been whining about guns and 2A for years.
Its possible he might come around. After all, back in 2004, he supported dismantling ALL Jewish homes (with over 1/2 a million Jews) in Judea and Samaria and carving out a a new jihadistine.
But by the time Barack Obullcrap allowed the UN to condemn Israeli “Settlements” a few years ago, Dershowitz found him self defending Israel more and more.
Perhaps as he ages we’ll see him more awake on the 2nd Amendent.
Trump’s Middle East policy is the one and only reason Dershowitz defends him. On every other issue, 2nd Amendment included, Dershowitz remains an across the board liberal, so I don’t understand all the love for him on this site. Has he said some things I agree with about the Russia collusion witch-hunt? Sure, but so what. Just about everyone occasionally says something that I agree with.
Negative, any domestic violence conviction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.