From last week:
Republican Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka said Wednesday that a hearing on gun legislation is possible this year if bills to restrict firearms pass through the Democratic-led House as standalone measures...
“If the House begins to move on their end, then we are willing to take a look at it on our side,” Gazelka said. “I’m not so sure it’s going to pass on our side. In fact I don’t think it’s going to pass on our side. But I think an open hearing on it is worthwhile.”
One bill awaiting a vote in the House would require background checks on all but a few types of gun sales and transfers. The other would give law enforcement greater latitude to seek a court-ordered revocation of guns if they or a person’s family believes there’s a risk of gun violence. It’s possible both could be put to up-or-down votes on their own and tucked into budget bills, which would put them in the end-of-session mix...
He stressed that such a Senate committee hearing would also involve bills favored by gun-rights supporters. That includes an expansion of self-defense laws and a measure to step up penalties for gun transfers to someone whom the seller knows to be ineligible to have a firearm. - MPR
A hearing! Why, that's awfully "big" of Sen. Gazelka, given that the House measures are only
supported by 89 and 87% of Minnesotans, respectively, per recent polling. Meanwhile, perhaps you've seen what one of the Minnesota Party of Trump's parent organizations (in practical terms, anyway) is up to.
In the United States today, a man convicted of physically abusing his spouse, ex-spouse, live-in lover, or co-parent does not have the right to own a firearm. A man convicted of assaulting his casual dating partner — or stalking him or her, after they break up — however, can carry on owning as many AR-15s as his heart desires. (The same, of course, holds for abusers of all genders).
Congressional Democrats want to change that. And not without reason. Women in abusive relationships are five times more likely to be murdered by their partner if he (or, in rare cases, she) owns a firearm. About half of all female homicide victims are killed by intimate partners — and about half of intimate partner homicides are committed by casual dating partners. The fact that federal law bars abusive husbands — but not abusive boyfriends — from owning guns has no criminological justification. Thus, Nancy Pelosi’s caucus wants to use Congress’s pending reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as an opportunity to close “the boyfriend loophole,” by adding language that would bar abusive dating partners and stalkers from purchasing firearms.
But the National Rifle Association is rallying to the defense of the little guy (who stalks his ex-girlfriends and stockpiles deadly weapons). - New York Magazine
"In the United States today, a man convicted of physically abusing his spouse, ex-spouse, live-in lover, or co-parent does not have the right to own a firearm" ... yep, that's a fact ... and has been for decades.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the key word in that sentence is "convicted".
Ya wanna bet that there are plenty of spouses that decide not to proceed with a complaint and prosecutors who are willing to cut a deal to eliminate that charge, or decide not to pursue the case because the outcome can not be predicted ? Plus convictions can take a long time ... from when the complaint is made, through the trial process and ultimately to the penalty being assessed.
The House did approve HR1585 The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 ... but not without some interesting debate.
IMO, the best thing about the bill is how it was processed. It followed John Boehner's Pillars of a New Majority pledge ... as it went through committee with amendments offered, debated by the full House with 61 amendments considered, before a final vote.
One of the more interesting amendments was offered by Ken Buck of Colorado ... "provides grants for firearms training to help victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking protect themselves" ... in simple terms, that means that money could go to facilities that operate NRA firearm training centers. It was defeated. The NRA also objected to provisions related to "Red Flag" laws (permits law enforcement, medical personnel, family members, and others to petition a court to prohibit people from possessing a firearm if they pose a significant danger to themselves or others) ... something that Mike Pence signed into law in Indiana as the "JakeLaird law" which had near unanimous approval from the state legislature. It's a proposal that Erik Paulsen pushed in his last term.
Another argument was voiced by Debbie Lasko that the individual would lose their right to due process since a judge could act on a police request without hearing the individual's side.
Although, the NRA lobbied hard against the bill - informing Members that it would be on their "Scorecard" for determining endorsements, 33 Republicans and 230 Democrats voted to defy the NRA.
Of the 33 Republicans voting Yes was Eighth District Representative Pete Stauber ... while the only Democrat to vote NO was Seventh District Representative Collin Peterson.