NRA declares opposition to reauthorizing the Violence Against Woman Act

So the NRA is opposed to reauthorizing the Violence Against Woman Act because men with domestic violence incidents on the their record would not be able to purchase firearms.

“It is a shame that some in the gun-control community treat the severity of domestic violence so trivially that they are willing to use it as a tool to advance a political agenda,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker,

It is an interesting argument. On the one hand, why should some lose their right to purchase a firearm just because they punched their wife in the face. And on the other side people who commit crimes probably should face some hurdles when it comes to purchasing something used to kill people.

"The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".[7]"

Violence_Against_Women_Act

"However, House Republicans broadly object to at least four new policies added to the bill to reauthorize VAWA — which expired back in February when Democrats objected to GOP efforts to include a short-term extension of the law in a spending deal. But the most controversial are new provisions to lower the criminal threshold to bar someone from buying a gun to include misdemeanor convictions of domestic abuse or stalking charges. Current law applies to felony convictions."

"Sometimes things are as simple as this: If we are doing a Violence Against Women Act and we are trying to save lives, why would you not close a simple loophole that says if someone has been convicted — convicted not accused! — convicted of domestic violence, that they not have access to a gun," said Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich.

Violence Against Women Act Gets Tangled Up In Gun Rights Debate

I tend to be liberal Democrat socialist but I don't see how violence against women leads to gun control. I don't see Debbie Dingell's argument as being valid. People who commit violence against women may already have guns so what difference does it make.

Isn't it already illegal to go around beating others?

So why should there be a law to make something that's already illegal more so?

It would also close the so-called "boyfriend loophole" to expand existing firearm prohibitions to include dating partners convicted of abuse or stalking charges.

When the left runs their mouths about loopholes they're making snip up.

That's snip anyway because ATF form 4473 already covers 'past transgressions' along with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

ATF form 4473.

www.atf.gov...

Lines 11, b,c,h,i.

Another crap thread.

a reply to: dfnj2015

People who commit violence against women may already have guns so what difference does it make.

I think the presumed difference is that a man might think twice about abusing a woman if he knows that he will forever lose his right to bear arms if he does so... that few minutes of violent self-gratification might not seem so gratifying if he knows the consequences to HIM could be forever. Abusers obviously don't care what the consequences or damages are for the woman being abused. So the point is to make it personal. To make HIM hurt as a consequence of HIS actions.

I would also think that the purpose is to dis-arm those who have demonstrated and displayed inappropriate and unnecessary violence toward others, especially someone weaker, and perhaps from a position of trust. Too often the man who is quite happy and willing to beat the crap out of a woman with his fists is just as likely to shoot that woman (and others) with a gun. So it's not the gun itself that's the problem, but the violent nature and tendencies of the person holding that gun. Thus, rather than criminalize the gun, the law seeks to criminalize the behavior of the person.

Whether or not it would work remains to be seen.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Should people convicted of domestic violence lose their right to free speech? Or their right to vote?

Why do you think it's okay to take some rights and not others?

Assault is already illegal, making it more illegal doesn't make it happen less.

Why doesnt this bill include women that commit domestic violence?
People would be surprised by how many men are physically abused by women.

This bill has nothing to do with protecting anyone from violence, it's only about pandering to a voter base.

a reply to: neo96

That's snip anyway because ATF form 4473 already covers 'past transgressions' along with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

ATF form 4473.... Lines 11, b,c,h,i.

Thank you for providing the link, and right you are:

I understand that a person who answers "yes" to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.i and/or 12.b. through 12.c. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm.

Another crap thread.

Well, another crap bill anyway... the thread is valid to the extent that it informs us of the crap bill.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Why doesnt this bill include women that commit domestic violence?

Doesn't include TG's either.

It's a sexist law.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Bluntone22

Why doesnt this bill include women that commit domestic violence?

Doesn't include TG's either.

It's a sexist law.

The law doesn't have to pretend a boy is a girl so I dont think tg's matter.

a reply to: watchitburn

Felons lose their right to vote already.

Your argument is invalid.

What the disingenuous are leaving out is that the liberals are trying to include in this bill that transgender males must be admitted to women’s shelters and prisons. Apparently a transgender male to female already raped two women in a UK prison. But let’s pretend it’s about guns if it makes the liberals feel better!

www.dailysignal.com...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Why doesnt this bill include women that commit domestic violence?
People would be surprised by how many men are physically abused by women.

This bill has nothing to do with protecting anyone from violence, it's only about pandering to a voter base.

Your point is well taken in that no one should be physically abusing anyone, so women abusing men is no better than men abusing women. And within my lifetime, I've watched the laws evolve from it being legal for a man to beat his wife, to laws against men beating their wives, and to laws mandating the arrest of BOTH men and women who physically assault their spouse, etc.

But do you really believe that men are abused by women to the same extent that women are abused by men?

Even if we assume that men don't report abuse as often as women (and that's iffy, in my opinion), there are objective indicators that men abuse women far more often, and far more seriously, than women abuse men. Starting with emergency room visits and, of course, dead bodies.

Would you feel differently about this bill if it applied equally to men and women, as opposed to protecting women only?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: watchitburn

Felons lose their right to vote already.

Your argument is invalid.

And it doesn't even have to be a violent crime

All DV crimes can already be felonys

Just wait dui will be next once there gone speeding tickets and once that's gone they'll take away your rights for cussing in public

Can't get rid of the second just go around it they already got every felony even if it has nothing to do with guns or violence

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Why doesnt this bill include women that commit domestic violence?
People would be surprised by how many men are physically abused by women.

This bill has nothing to do with protecting anyone from violence, it's only about pandering to a voter base.

It should include women. Most definitely. They shoot spouses too.

That said, I do know a couple of people that have the types of out of control tempers, that should never have a gun in their possession. Their spouses likely would be dead by now.

I left a boyfriend years ago, because he got a gun. I stupidly put up with the abuse until he got a gun. He also threatened to kill me if I ever left him. I had to have a cop help me get out of there.

My husband has guns, I have no worries at all about him. He would never use it on me.

Laws don’t control people’s tempers.

originally posted by: Lab4Us
What the disingenuous are leaving out is that the liberals are trying to include in this bill that transgender males must be admitted to women’s shelters and prisons. Apparently a transgender male to female already raped two women in a UK prison. But let’s pretend it’s about guns if it makes the liberals feel better!

www.dailysignal.com...

Thank you. Now I see the game being played...

The Violence Against Women Act also requires that prisons take in biological males who identify as women in women prisons.

Grrrrrrrrr!!!

originally posted by: Lab4Us
What the disingenuous are leaving out is that the liberals are trying to include in this bill that transgender males must be admitted to women’s shelters and prisons. Apparently a transgender male to female already raped two women in a UK prison. But let’s pretend it’s about guns if it makes the liberals feel better!

www.dailysignal.com...

Exactly........

But why would the op leave this out of his hit piece, er I mean thread?????

Hmmmmm

Could it be he already made a thread accusing the NRA of working w the Russians????

OP has a hard on for the NRA and is in no way honest in his threads about them

originally posted by: markovian
All DV crimes can already be felonys

Just wait dui will be next once there gone speeding tickets and once that's gone they'll take away your rights for cussing in public

Can't get rid of the second just go around it they already got every felony even if it has nothing to do with guns or violence

You already can't hqv guns if you get felony dui......

If you have any felony at all, regardless of type, you cannot own firearms

a reply to: Boadicea

www.google.com...

www.socialsolutions.com...


I would say that women are abused more than men but only because men are physically stronger and dont stand there and take a beating.

Apparently it happens more than we think.
I really dont see why it matters if it doesnt happen as often. It still happens so it should be included in the bill.

And I dont like the bill even if its equally enforced but it would be better than it is now.

a reply to: grey580

I thought that had been changed.
I don't know, I'm not a felon so haven't followed it very closely.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Whooooaaa... hold on. You’re a socialist who believes in gun rights?