“U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Not A God Given Right” Murphy have unveiled new federal legislation they say would close loopholes that leave domestic violence victims vulnerable to gun violence after the issuance of a temporary restraining order,” boston.com reports. “Blumenthal and Murphy co-sponsored the Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act that was unveiled in Hartford on Friday. They say the legislation would establish consistent, nationwide protections for victims of domestic violence.” What they don’t say is that the bill “Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to modify the definition of: (1) “intimate partner” to include a dating partner or former dating partner of a person (replacing language including an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person); and (2) “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include an offense that has, as an element, the use of physical force or a deadly weapon by a dating partner or former dating partner.” And that means . . .
That anyone you date could claim you smacked, hit or otherwise used physical force against them and petition a court to have your guns removed. But wait! That’s not all! Under the bill’s provisions your employer can also make charges of a physical altercation that would immediately remove your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected (in theory) right to keep and bear arms.
You know that innocent until proven guilty thing? As 50 Cent will tell you, that doesn’t apply in domestic abuse cases; your guns goeth before the trial. What changes with this bill: the right to confront your accuser (a.k.a., the Confrontation Clause of the 14th Amendment) is toast.
Extends the prohibition against the shipment, transport, possession, or receipt of a firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to: (1) a person who is subject to a court order issued after a hearing (eliminating the requirements that the person received actual notice of and had an opportunity to participate in the hearing) with respect to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, threatening, or placing in reasonable fear of bodily injury an intimate partner, a child of such intimate partner or person, a family member even if such member had never cohabited with such person, an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person, or an elderly or dependent adult; (2) a person restrained by a court order issued at the request of an employer on behalf of its employee or at the request of an institution of higher education on behalf of its student; and (3) a court order that restrains such a person from intimidating or dissuading a witness from testifying in court.
All this because . . . it’s common sense!
The lawmakers say in a statement that the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent. They say about two-thirds of women killed by a firearm in the country in 2010 were shot by an intimate partner.
Increases it from what? How many women? Define intimate partner? Does that include pimps? How many of those murders were committed with a legally owned firearm? How many of those murderers should have been incarcerated for a previous crime? I hate it when gun control advocates cherry pick stats to justify their anti-gun legislation.
As someone who used to have an eye for the ladies, as someone who’s gone through a nasty divorce (or two), I’m here to say that the odds of false accusations by a vengeance-seeking wife, partner and/or dating partner targeting your gun thing are pretty damn high. Playa. The odds of a judge ordering you to surrender your guns “just in case” are even higher.
Needless to say, it already happens. This bill would pave the way for just about anyone to “rat out” a gun owner and boom! Their guns are gone—pleasing gun control advocates and SWAT teams alike. The freedom-killing cancer of civilian disarmament unleashed by the Newtown spree killing continues to spread.