• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA opposes Democrats expansion of Violence Against Women Act

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
61,961
Reaction score
19,061
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From United Press International

NRA opposes Democrats expansion of Violence Against Women Act

April 3 (UPI) -- Democrats are seeking to expand the Violence Against Women Act to close the so-called boyfriend loophole amid opposition from the National Rifle Association.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision to be added to the 1994 law that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.


"Domestic abusers are prohibited from buying or owning a firearm if they've ever been married to the victim, lived together or had a child together, but a dangerous ex-boyfriend or a dating partner, there's nothing to stop them," Dingell said.


Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said women are just as likely to be killed by dating partners as by spouses.

COMMENT:-

What a blatant violation of the Constitutional Rights of Americans on the basis of BOTH gender AND marital status.

Why aren't men given the same protections as Part 4 gives women?

Why are married, or formerly married, men treated differently than those who are not married, or formerly married?

Why does the NRA think that it's OK for a former "boyfriend" to be more able to kill a former "girlfriend" than a former "husband" is able to kill a former "wife"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

PS- Despite what the NRA said, the changes were passed in the House. Now it's up to the Senate to decide if it is going to protect the Constitution of the United States of America by preserving the rights of "former boyfriends" to "keep and bear arms". If the Senate doesn't do it, then it will be up to Mr. Trump to save the country yet again.

Right?
 
From United Press International

NRA opposes Democrats expansion of Violence Against Women Act

April 3 (UPI) -- Democrats are seeking to expand the Violence Against Women Act to close the so-called boyfriend loophole amid opposition from the National Rifle Association.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision to be added to the 1994 law that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.


"Domestic abusers are prohibited from buying or owning a firearm if they've ever been married to the victim, lived together or had a child together, but a dangerous ex-boyfriend or a dating partner, there's nothing to stop them," Dingell said.


Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said women are just as likely to be killed by dating partners as by spouses.

COMMENT:-

What a blatant violation of the Constitutional Rights of Americans on the basis of BOTH gender AND marital status.

Why aren't men given the same protections as Part 4 gives women?

Why are married, or formerly married, men treated differently than those who are not married, or formerly married?

Why does the NRA think that it's OK for a former "boyfriend" to be more able to kill a former "girlfriend" than a former "husband" is able to kill a former "wife"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

PS- Despite what the NRA said, the changes were passed in the House. Now it's up to the Senate to decide if it is going to protect the Constitution of the United States of America by preserving the rights of "former boyfriends" to "keep and bear arms". If the Senate doesn't do it, then it will be up to Mr. Trump to save the country yet again.

Right?

Isn't a domestic abuse conviction a felony already?
 
It can go either way.

Ok, I thought it was a felony conviction which would make the law redundant,

If it can go both ways, then it's a fair point.
 
Isn't a domestic abuse conviction a felony already?

Depends but if someone's constitutional rights should require a felony conviction for forfeiture. The Lautenberg amendment was blatantly unfair as to retroactive application because many men pled out to misdemeanor violations based on many reasons-and would not have if they knew that 3-5-8-15 years later, they would lose their right to KBA and (in many cases) jobs due to the odious retroactive application of the Lautenberg amendment.
 
Depends but if someone's constitutional rights should require a felony conviction for forfeiture. The Lautenberg amendment was blatantly unfair as to retroactive application because many men pled out to misdemeanor violations based on many reasons-and would not have if they knew that 3-5-8-15 years later, they would lose their right to KBA and (in many cases) jobs due to the odious retroactive application of the Lautenberg amendment.

That's sounds like ex post facto law.
 
From United Press International

NRA opposes Democrats expansion of Violence Against Women Act

April 3 (UPI) -- Democrats are seeking to expand the Violence Against Women Act to close the so-called boyfriend loophole amid opposition from the National Rifle Association.

As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., drafted a provision to be added to the 1994 law that would strip stalkers, current or former boyfriends or dating partners convicted of domestic abuse of their firearms.


"Domestic abusers are prohibited from buying or owning a firearm if they've ever been married to the victim, lived together or had a child together, but a dangerous ex-boyfriend or a dating partner, there's nothing to stop them," Dingell said.


Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said women are just as likely to be killed by dating partners as by spouses.

COMMENT:-

What a blatant violation of the Constitutional Rights of Americans on the basis of BOTH gender AND marital status.

Why aren't men given the same protections as Part 4 gives women?

Why are married, or formerly married, men treated differently than those who are not married, or formerly married?

Why does the NRA think that it's OK for a former "boyfriend" to be more able to kill a former "girlfriend" than a former "husband" is able to kill a former "wife"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

PS- Despite what the NRA said, the changes were passed in the House. Now it's up to the Senate to decide if it is going to protect the Constitution of the United States of America by preserving the rights of "former boyfriends" to "keep and bear arms". If the Senate doesn't do it, then it will be up to Mr. Trump to save the country yet again.

Right?

Most people know the Democratic Party is radically sexist and now openly hates all men. According to the Democratic Party, black people may assault white people and women may assault and stalk men as payback. The very title of the law is grotesquely sexist and discriminatory.

There is nothing rare about women stalking men.
 
That's sounds like ex post facto law.

I did too but what some talk show hosts called a "yes dear" law, was upheld for the same reason that the retroactive application of the 1968 GCA was upheld.
 
Perhaps we should simply confiscate guns from exes in general haha. This is a good start though.
 
I bet in at least 75% of divorce cases involving custody the women swears the man is abusive. It is standard form pleading in legal divorce form books.

These summarily granted disarm orders - ex parte at first and later a summary hearing without a jury and held very informally - are an easy way to make a target 100% exposed. You want to kill an ex? First have the court disarm that ex. Now the ex is defenseless against any attackers.

Shouldn't anyone accused of a crime automatically lose their right to vote and anyone accused of any offense by which they could lose their driver's license should immediately lose it temporarily until and unless found not guilty?

Shouldn't everyone automatically be treated as guilty in all ways any time anyone accuses the person of anything?
 
Last edited:
Depends but if someone's constitutional rights should require a felony conviction for forfeiture. The Lautenberg amendment was blatantly unfair as to retroactive application because many men pled out to misdemeanor violations based on many reasons-and would not have if they knew that 3-5-8-15 years later, they would lose their right to KBA and (in many cases) jobs due to the odious retroactive application of the Lautenberg amendment.

I've never known any prosecutor to tell any defendant the full effect of pleading guilty. For example, for felonies no prosecutor says "and you will never be allowed to own a firearm, you can not vote, you can not join the military, you can not obtain security clearance..." They only mention jail time, fines, community service and probation.

If the Bill Of Rights and rule of law still meant anything - which it rarely does now - retroactive lost rights for a new law does not pass the Constitutional test. If a person is sentenced to certain punishment, stripping away other rights years later is outright wrong.

IF ordinary practices of law and due process were not totally ignored uniquely about guns, exactly everyone who plead guilty on a plea deal could demand either they are exempt because no additional punishment be added or demand their conviction be overturned because the state broke its part of the deal. You can not plead guilty to a crime provided you do 2 years in prison - and then 2 years later the state votes to extend the minimum to 10 years - for which you are stuck with your side of the deal and the state is not. Yet they claim that is exactly what they can do about firearms.
 
Back
Top Bottom