jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
The GOP’s Latest Gun Bill Would Be Catastrophic For Women Fleeing Abuse
A measure before the House this week would force states to recognize concealed carry permits issued elsewhere.
A potential nightmare situation for victims of domestic violence is brewing in the U.S. House, which is expected to vote this week on a bill that would allow many domestic abusers banned from carrying firearms in their home states to obtain concealed carry permits elsewhere.
The bill, from Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), allows anyone with a permit from one state to carry hidden, loaded firearms into all other states. It would allow people with permits from states with weak permitting rules to carry into states with strict rules, like New York and California. And if a state will issue a concealed carry permit to a nonresident, an applicant could get one and carry the weapon into any other state.
Opponents of the legislation, known as the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, warn that it would allow the states with the loosest permitting standards to define the laws of the nation and would undermine states’ rights to protect their own residents.
The National Rifle Association has called this legislation, which is expected to pass in the House, its “highest legislative priority.” It is likely to be the first gun bill to receive a vote since the back-to-back mass shootings in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs, Texas.
Gun violence experts and victims’ advocates say the legislation is particularly alarming for domestic violence survivors, who are in more danger when their abusers are able to carry hidden firearms.
Under federal law, a person convicted of domestic violence or subject to certain protective orders is not allowed to own firearms. But the law is limited ― it only covers spouses, not dating partners or stalkers ― and dozens of states have passed their own laws that expand on federal legislation in the interest of keeping guns away from abusers.
Currently, each state sets its own rules about who is eligible to carry concealed weapons. In some states, law enforcement can prohibit a person from carrying a concealed gun at their discretion, such as if they believe the applicant lacks good character or doesn’t have a good reason to carry a loaded gun in public. In other states, officials are essentially required to issue a permit to anyone who meets basic requirements, such as passing a background check or completing safety training.
Some states offer significantly more protections to victims of domestic abuse, dating violence and stalking than others. In 28 states, for example, individuals convicted of stalking are not allowed to carry in public. But, as Everytown for Gun Safety counsel Courtney Zale explained to HuffPost, under concealed carry reciprocity, a stalker in one of those states could obtain a permit from Florida, which does not prohibit stalkers and issues permits to nonresidents through the mail. He could then use that permit to carry throughout the country.
In another example, an abuser who is convicted of sexually assaulting his girlfriend cannot currently legally carry a concealed firearm in Massachusetts. But under this bill, he could obtain a permit from nearby New Hampshire ― which issues permits to nonresidents and does not consider that offense prohibitory ― and carry his firearm back into his home state.
In 25 states and Washington, D.C., law enforcement can deny individuals a concealed carry permit if they have a history of red flags, such as repeated domestic disturbances. Under concealed carry reciprocity, a person could bypass state rules by applying for a permit from a state with less stringent standards.
Ruth Glenn, executive director for the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the House measure would effectively “zero out” countless state laws designed to protect victims of abuse. A person who is banned from carrying guns in his home state because of domestic violence could just apply for a permit from another state where he is still eligible because of more permissive laws, she said.
“The efforts that some states have made will be for naught,” Glenn said. “Domestic abusers are very crafty. If we think they don’t know about these laws and ways around them, we are sadly mistaken.”
If a woman in the U.S. is a victim of gun violence, it’s usually because of domestic abuse. More than half of women killed with guns in the U.S. between 2010 and 2014 were killed by intimate partners or family members. The research on this topic is unambiguous: Firearms make abusive relationships more dangerous. If abusers have access to guns, victims are five times more likely to be killed.
Even when they are not being used to kill and maim women, guns are often deployed as a tactic to control and terrorize victims. In addition, most mass shootings in the U.S. involve a male perpetrator targeting a family member or intimate partner.
Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said that when survivors relocate to escape their abusers, they often take into consideration a state’s firearms protections.
“Imagine fleeing to another state where you believe your abuser won’t be able to carry a gun, and then finding out that Congress says that he can bring his gun with him ― and he can hide it,” she said.
Susan B. Sorenson, a gun violence researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the House bill could endanger lives. There’s some evidence to back that up: A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that states with weaker concealed carry laws were associated with 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rates.
“If this law gets passed, it will be the state with the easiest permit requirements that will define the permitting requirements for every state,” said Adam Winkler, a gun policy expert and law professor at UCLA. “A state that is willing to give permits to people with a history of domestic violence will undermine the laws of many other states that are trying to restrict abusers.”
Okay, Lucy, here is the flaw in the argument, that the anti gunners will not admit even exists, primarily because the do not know the freaking law, or just choose to ignore it.
quote:
Identify Prohibited Persons
The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Straight from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives website.
I highlighted the pertinent section just for you, which is getting real old since I have posted this section of FEDERAL law more than a few times.
As soon as a person is convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, by federal law, he automatically loses the right to own firearms, which means, under federal law, the local law enforcement agency is responsible for going to said person's home and confiscate said weapons.
Now if the local law enforcement people fail to do this, they leave themselves open a to a world of civil liabilities, the chief or sheriff can be prosecuted as well as sued, AND should the person that just lost the right to own a gun be caught with one, he not only faces state illegal possession charges but federal.
And no, double indemnity does not apply, since it is not the same jurisdiction, he can literally be convicted twice for the same crime at different levels and under the constitution first serve the state sentence then be released to serve the federal one.
So this argument:
quote:
Gun violence experts and victims’ advocates say the legislation is particularly alarming for domestic violence survivors, who are in more danger when their abusers are able to carry hidden firearms.
Under federal law, a person convicted of domestic violence or subject to certain protective orders is not allowed to own firearms. But the law is limited ― it only covers spouses, not dating partners or stalkers ― and dozens of states have passed their own laws that expand on federal legislation in the interest of keeping guns away from abusers.
Is bullshit, one a number of levels.
First the Federal law does not state spouses or is limited to spouses:
makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
So would you please show me where the law is limited to just spouses?
Oh, and if you really want to do some research to shot holes in this article, I would point out that under the current state and federal stalking statutes, especially after the Rebecca Schaeffer murder, this restriction has stood up in court against boyfriends, former boyfriends, stalkers and obsessed fans. In other words, the legal term has grown to cover any possibility in the pursuit of public safety.
Kind of like when they figured out that one did not have to be married to be the victim of domestic violence and that a wife can be raped by her husband and the husband convicted of the crime.
But hey, if you really want to stick to this line of bullshit despite the various court rulings upheld, go right ahead.
FYI, the prohibited persons section of the federal gun regulations was amended some years ago to remove the word spouse entirely.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Sensible gun control at last. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread