Today’s National Rifle Association: standing up for stalkers and perpetrators of domestic violence.
The National Rifle Association is fighting proposed federal legislation that would prohibit those convicted of stalking and of domestic violence against dating partners from buying guns, according to a letter obtained by The Huffington Post.
Federal law already bars persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from purchasing firearms. S. 1290, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), would add convicted stalkers to that group of offenders and would expand the current definition of those convicted of domestic violence against “intimate partners” to include those who harmed dating partners.
Aides from two different senators’ offices confirm that the NRA sent a letter to lawmakers describing Klobuchar’s legislation as “a bill to turn disputes between family members and social acquaintances into lifetime firearm prohibitions.” The nation’s largest gun lobby wrote that it “strongly opposes” the bill because the measure “manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as ‘domestic violence’ and ‘stalking’ simply to cast as wide a net as possible for federal firearm prohibitions.”
From the article: “Stalking’ offenses do not necessarily include violent or even threatening behavior”
The very act of stalking IS threatening behavior…
Zach, thanks.
I’ve posted, “I Was The NRA,”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/25/i-was-the-nra/
before. IMHO it accurately sketches the gradual implosion of a group that was once respected.
This whole idea of losing a basic right, for life, over a misdemeanor crime is flat-out wrong and ya’ll should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting it. If someone is considered too dangerous to own a firearm, then put that person in prison rather than slapped on the wrist with a misdemeanor charge.
purple,
With friends like you, the Second doesn’t need enemies.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Read the link above, “I Was The NRA.” Firearm ownership carries great responsibilities. That’s why the framers put it in the context of a “well-regulated” militia.
Reasonable people can argue about the proper sentence to fairly maximize the deterrence needed. I haven’t read the legislation. If there isn’t some exemption for hunting rifles, I think it’s DOA.
Thanks to NRA propaganda for weapons and ammo industry, too many people who don’t know how to store guns and ammo, who don’t have a clue about how to clean them think they should own them.
For non-hunting firearms, I think forcing people to buy insurance makes a lot of sense. The more lethal the weapon, (effective range, round velocity, magazine capacity) the more expensive the insurance. The more ammo they buy, the more insurance they have to buy.
“…losing a basic right…” pp,thou dost protest too much methinks.
Recent research indicates only about one in three households owns a firearm. Evidently, a vast majority of Americans do not consider it necessary to own a musket or to exercise your false “basic right.” And many of this vast majority feel secure in having an all volunteer “militia” currently called the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines to defend them and our country. And if that isn’t enough, the arcane “militia” has long ago been replaced by citizen volunteers in each state’s National Guard units.
I also submit that wife-beaters and peeping toms and other such deviants are not worthy candidates for our 2014 armed forces nor were they for the militia of the 1700’s.
Social misfits cited above should be excluded from gun ownership.
If only muskets are protected under the Second Amendment then does that mean there is no First Amendment rights on the internet or while talking on a cell phone? And you really think that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure the army had arms? All due respect, but that’s absurd…almost as absurd as claiming a right should only be protected if the majority are actively exercising it. (Should VoterID be allowed in states with low turnout? If less than 50% of the population practices a particular religion then does the First Amendment apply to them?)
Look, I get it – vast most of my pals on the left don’t beleive there is an individual right to possess firearms. However, the Supreme Court says otherwise…and no, there isn’t any exemption for “hunting” rifles when a person is banned, for life, from possessing a firearm. Step back for a second and ask yourself would you accept this type of punishment (a lifetime ban for a misdemeanor conviction) on any other rights protected by the Constitution? As I’ve said many times before, the Republican Party wants to take away my vote and the Democratic Party wants to take away my guns. There is no longer a political party which is interested in standing up for all the rights protected under the Constitution, and that is a crying shame.
Again, it comes down to this: If someone has committed a crime which makes them too dangerous to possess a firearm then they shouldn’t be charged with a mere misdemeanor. It sounds like you want it both ways….you’re saying the crime isn’t really serious enough to be a felony, but you still want to impose a lifetime’s worth of punishment. Pretty obvious you’re looking for any excuse to grab as many guns as possible, even if there is no logical reason behind it.
Don’t worry about more gun restrictions any time soon. The SCOTUS has just allowed the, “pro-life,” gun adoring (and doctor murdering) right wing
protestorspetitioners to get more directly in the face of women seeking reproductive and other women’s health services (apparently whether or not those services might or might not be abortion related).No doubt pro-life clinic
stalkerspetitioners will soon be allowed to kidnap women and hold a future mother at gunpoint until labor begins and a child is born, at which point they will make sure the new mother can’t access a job, food, further health services, public education for her child, equal wages or adequate and affordable housing.So don’t sweat the proposed gun restrictions too much. SCOTUS likely has your back on gun ownership, despite what legislators might be able to pass by way of penalties for particular felonious behavior.