Rep. Gifford wants better gun laws to protect women

robjvargas · Jul 29, 2014

Gabby Giffords has an editorial piece at CNN entitled "Guns Killing Women."

It's... I don't know the words for what I mean. It's a good piece, as far as it goes. But... does narrowing the focus like that do any real good?

I'm pro-2nd-Amendment, and pretty far toward that side. I acknowledge that common-sense laws are still possible. But as I read over Gabby Giffords' piece, I'm struck by something. There's a whole lot of talk about alarming statistics. I don't argue against any of that.

But... now what?

Keeping guns out of the hands of abusers and stalkers will take more than a Senate hearing and carefully worded statements that say all the right things. It will require our leaders to show some courage and stand up for common-sense laws. It will require some hard work. And it will require overcoming the power of those in Washington who continue to fight against these laws.

But we urgently need stronger gun laws that protect women. We can't wait any longer. Women's lives are at stake.

Is she talking about making stalking a federal offense? As she points out, it's already coming into place at the state level:

Democrats and Republicans in state legislatures around the country recognize the problem and have come together to pass laws that better protect women from gun violence. This year alone, leaders in six states -- Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Washington and Wisconsin -- have enacted legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support that will help protect abused women from gun violence.

When stalking and domestic violence crosses state lines, it absolutely needs federal attention. That I get. But she doesn't talk about that. Even though action is taking place at the state level, she's arguing for federal laws.

MADD worked to alter attitudes and enact laws state by state. I don't see why that can't work for domestic abuse and appropriate gun laws as well.

I don't know. Does that count as disagreeing with her? I guess.

Hanson · Jul 29, 2014

Guns V Women?

Hmmm.

Toughy.

I mean, guns have the whole bullet thing going on....

but....

yeah, I'm gonna go Women.

Devil Ledbetter · Jul 29, 2014

While I don't like zero tolerance policies, I don't really see denying gun rights to those convicted of domestic violence (regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's gender) as a problem. The fact that the victims of domestic assault are generally women and the perpetrators are generally men is beside the point to me. People who perpetrate violence against their partners and children should be denied guns.

That is common sense.

Monkey · Jul 29, 2014

I agree with Devil.

clintl · Jul 29, 2014

Me too.

Take the abusers' guns away.

Hanson · Jul 29, 2014

Thread title still intact then?

ah well....

raburrell · Jul 29, 2014

A shocker, I'm sure, but I'm with DL as well.

benbradley · Jul 29, 2014

Rob, I think few posters (probably only the usual right-of-center suspects) will even acknowledge the state-vs-federal law thing. Most will only say "yes, there ought to be a law..."

Not that it matters much. Some state laws (speed limits, DUI blood-alcohol level limits, others I can't offhand think of) are tied directly to federal laws and funding anyway.

Devil Ledbetter said:
While I don't like zero tolerance policies, I don't really see denying gun rights to those convicted of domestic violence (regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's gender) as a problem. The fact that the victims of domestic assault are generally women and the perpetrators are generally men is beside the point to me. People who perpetrate violence against their partners and children should be denied guns.

That is common sense.

I've seen a 'problematic' law in this area. In some state (may be Georgia but I forget), when a woman files for divorce, a restraining order is automatically issued against the husband. Another law states that if you have a restraining order against you, you automatically lose your gun permit, so a woman filing for divorce automatically causes her husband to lose the right to carry a gun. A lot of men see this as unfair, and of being convicted of 'something' without a judge or jury.

C.bronco · Jul 29, 2014

Devil Ledbetter said:
While I don't like zero tolerance policies, I don't really see denying gun rights to those convicted of domestic violence (regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's gender) as a problem. The fact that the victims of domestic assault are generally women and the perpetrators are generally men is beside the point to me. People who perpetrate violence against their partners and children should be denied guns.

That is common sense.

Devil L, I misread your post and agree with you.

raburrell · Jul 29, 2014

benbradley said:
I've seen a 'problematic' law in this area. In some state (may be Georgia but I forget), when a woman files for divorce, a restraining order is automatically issued against the husband. Another law states that if you have a restraining order against you, you automatically lose your gun permit, so a woman filing for divorce automatically causes her husband to lose the right to carry a gun. A lot of men see this as unfair, and of being convicted of 'something' without a judge or jury.

I'd never heard of this, so I googled - what happens in Georgia is a 'Mutual Restraining Order', and applies to both parties.
http://www.douglasnfox.com/Georgia_...Restraining_Orders_Divorce_Family_Violen.aspx

Although a TPO and MRO are each enforceable court orders that prohibit (or restrain) one or both of the parties from engaging in a particular sort of behavior, TPOs and MROs are completely different from one another. Whereas almost any superior court in Georgia will require that parties to a divorce or domestic action adhere to a generic Mutual Restraining Order to prevent the parties from shutting off home utilities, selling/liquidating/transferring marital assets, changing auto and health insurance or removing children from the jurisdiction of the court (though children can still be taken on a temporary out-of-state trip), a TPO falls under a special statutory scheme to provide for the protection of a party. The behavior that a TPO restrains is that of contact between parties.

So, not against men, and wouldn't automatically trigger a loss of gun rights without other circumstances.

CrastersBabies · Jul 29, 2014

A friend of mine had a restraining order put in place because her husband is abusive and threatened her life. (Obviously, they're separated and she's seeking a divorce.)

But, I know in the state where she is, because she has a PFA (Protection from Abuse) in place, he has lost access to his firearms for a certain amount of time.

I wasn't aware that these types of measures were in place. Not sure about my state, but in hers.

cornflake · Jul 29, 2014

robjvargas said:
Gabby Giffords has an editorial piece at CNN entitled "Guns Killing Women."

It's... I don't know the words for what I mean. It's a good piece, as far as it goes. But... does narrowing the focus like that do any real good?

I'm pro-2nd-Amendment, and pretty far toward that side. I acknowledge that common-sense laws are still possible. But as I read over Gabby Giffords' piece, I'm struck by something. There's a whole lot of talk about alarming statistics. I don't argue against any of that.

But... now what?

Is she talking about making stalking a federal offense? As she points out, it's already coming into place at the state level:

When stalking and domestic violence crosses state lines, it absolutely needs federal attention. That I get. But she doesn't talk about that. Even though action is taking place at the state level, she's arguing for federal laws.

MADD worked to alter attitudes and enact laws state by state. I don't see why that can't work for domestic abuse and appropriate gun laws as well.

I don't know. Does that count as disagreeing with her? I guess.

Driving is regulated entirely by states. Guns are subject to both state and federal legislation.

badwolf.usmc · Jul 29, 2014

Devil Ledbetter said:
While I don't like zero tolerance policies, I don't really see denying gun rights to those convicted of domestic violence (regardless of the perpetrator's or victim's gender) as a problem. The fact that the victims of domestic assault are generally women and the perpetrators are generally men is beside the point to me. People who perpetrate violence against their partners and children should be denied guns.

That is common sense.

Generally, aren't most crimes like this felonies? Which would mean they lose the right to own firearms, and the vote, anyway. Why do we need a separate law?

Williebee · Jul 29, 2014

MOD Note:

A bit more accurate title.

Monkey · Jul 29, 2014

I think the problem with "leave it at the state level" is that you end up with a hodgepodge of laws and lack of laws that can cause confusion and, in some situations, leave victims vulnerable.

Leaving it at the state level can also give assailants loopholes based on crossing state lines.

Meanwhile, the NRA says that a law prohibiting those convicted of domestic violence from having guns would "turn disputes between family members [...] into lifetime firearm prohibitions," and that "stalking" is too broad a term to show any real danger to women.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/your-nra-fighting-rights-wife-beaters-and

The fact that they equate domestic violence convictions with simple disputes makes me angry. Hulk-angry.

robjvargas · Jul 29, 2014

Yeah, Monkey, I wasn't referring to either/or. I just hope Gabby Giffords wasn't, either.

benbradley · Jul 29, 2014

cornflake said:
Driving is regulated entirely by states. Guns are subject to both state and federal legislation.

While that's "technically" true, in practice Congress has been meddling with state driving laws since at least 1973, by way of requiring certain things for a state to receive federal highway funds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1973

A major new restriction on the receipt of federal highway funds was that states were required to enact a 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) speed limit.

In 1986 states were threatened with losing federal highway funds for not doing enough to enforce the 55 speed limit:
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-05-29/news/mn-8085_1_speed-limit

In 1989 a court ruling upheld the Federal Government's right to tie funds to the 55 speed limit:
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-01/news/mn-1474_1_speed-limit

Monkey said:
I think the problem with "leave it at the state level" is that you end up with a hodgepodge of laws and lack of laws that can cause confusion and, in some situations, leave victims vulnerable.

Leaving it at the state level can also give assailants loopholes based on crossing state lines.

As the OP says, MADD did a lot of state-to-state work regarding drunk driving laws (there was also a drinking age limit tied to Federal highway funds, but I don't know if MADD had anything to do with that. ETA: Yes, they did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act).

The question used to be "are these laws more appropriate at the state level or at the federal level?" but with a larger and larger share of tax monies going to the US Federal Government, that question seems to get asked less and less, and the assumption seems to be that most new laws should be Federal laws.

Williebee · Jul 30, 2014

robjvargas said:
MADD worked to alter attitudes and enact laws state by state. I don't see why that can't work for domestic abuse and appropriate gun laws as well.

Actually MADD wasn't/isn't satisfied with the "state by state" approach, either. See, for example the National Minimum Drinking Age, from the mid - 80's.

kaitie · Jul 30, 2014

Darn, I need that link I had the other day! Not only do I agree that we need to stop stalkers and abusers from having access to guns, the majority of republicans and gun owners did as well. The numbers of support behind this were pretty impressive. I'll try to find the article so I can link it in. I almost started a thread on it at the time, then decided I'd been avoiding the gun threads since they upset me (especially when we just had ANOTHER toddler die after getting accidentally shot in my town).

I'd like to think the support will help, but the NRA is opposed to these laws, and background checks had 90% support and still got voted down because the NRA is all powerful. But maybe we'll get lucky this time and what people actually think will matter more than what the NRA is telling the government to do.

Monkey · Jul 30, 2014

While I think there are laws that should be left to the states to decide, I feel like some things should be consistent across state lines and are therefore best dealt with at the federal level.

Marriage is a good example of something that should be consistent even if the couple happens to be on vacation in another state, or if they have changed states during some point in their marriage. In my opinion, restrictions on owning a gun once you have been convicted of domestic abuse should also be consistent. Without consistency between states, abusers can simply cross state lines and carry on.

Rep. Gifford wants better gun laws to protect women

robjvargas

Hanson

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Monkey

Is me.

clintl

Represent.

Hanson

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

C.bronco

I have plans...

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

CrastersBabies

Burninator!

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

badwolf.usmc

#CustomUserTitle

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Monkey

Is me.

robjvargas

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

kaitie

With great power comes

Monkey

Is me.