The court order said this is an abuser, you can’t own a gun. It’s to close that loophole that exists. You know it is estimated that 50 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in America, 50 a month. Let’s pass it and save some lives.
But what is the loophole? This doesn't read like a written script. I had to look up the term "boyfriend loophole." It has its own Wikipedia page.
The term boyfriend loophole refers to a gap in American gun legislation that allows access to guns by physically abusive ex-boyfriends and stalkers with previous convictions. While individuals who have been convicted of, or are under a restraining order for domestic violence are prohibited from owning a firearm, the prohibition only applies if the victim was the perpetrator's spouse, cohabitant, or had a child with the victim. The boyfriend loophole has had a direct effect on people who experience domestic abuse or stalking by former or current intimate partners.
FROM THE EMAIL: Owen writes:
I guess one lesson is that whenever you see “loophole” you know that it’s the rhetorical warm-up move to justify some big new demand. (Previous similar usage: “gun show loophole,” “bump stock loophole,” “private transfer loophole.”) Emotionally “loophole” is catnip because who wants a hole in their cabin wall? Even if it was deliberately made to allow you to defend yourself from attackers?
Good point. And you made me think about the original meaning of "loophole" for the first time!
More seriously, I would be interested to know how many people would be affected by this new power to strip them, ex parte I guess, of their Constitutional right. Obviously the set of ex-boyfriends* is much larger than that of ex-spouses and ex-cohabitants; but how much larger? Presumably the set would be limited to ex-boyfriends who had been convicted of domestic violence or were under a judicial order; but are those judicial processes conducted (or can they be conducted) with adequate awareness and weighing of such a consequence; one that would materially affect the former boyfriend long into the future?
*Please note that in referring to “boyfriend” I don’t mean to endorse Biden’s misandry. Women should be subject to the same rules. Increasingly it is they who buy and use firearms.
I share your worry about the due process of taking away an individual's right to self-defense, but not your concern about sex discrimination. Despite the title of the law, the text is gender neutral. It addresses "gender-motivated" violence.
पोस्ट्स
