Senators Introduce Bill To Permanently Close Gun Loophole Used By Texas Shooter

Everyone should read this in it's entirety. This is a non partisan study from Austria. It makes perfect sense.

 

It is not a so-called loophole, rather it is incompetence on the part of those who are in charge of the system that is in place.

 

What do the available statistics reveal about women being able to successfully defend themselves in the united states, when compared to these other high-income countries?

 

"The problem dates back decades. In 1996, the inspector general found that the Army, Navy and Air Force were failing to report the vast majority of convictions to the F.B.I.

Federal agencies, unlike state and local ones, are required by law to report criminal records to the F.B.I. But in 2014, the inspector general found that the Defense Department still was not doing so."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/texas-shooting-background-checks.html

Failure to comply, not loophole.

 

Ironic since you erroneously assume that I did not get the vapidity of the content.

 

This entire thread is vacuous and based on a false premiss.

 

BZZT Wrong!

The alt right Mises organization is based in Alabama and has a rightwing bias to it's reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mises-daily/

 

It makes the politicians look like they are DOING SOMETHING.

 

Great non answer.

 

Failure to report is not a loophole.

 

I believe it's a mistake to permanently ban guns for low level domestic violence.
Incidents which could be regarded as domestic violence are actually much more common than most people want to admit to, and it's very frequent when the police become involved that the woman exaggerates what exactly the man did.

Add to this fact that military courts do not have a right to jury trial, and you're talking about potentially permanently taking away a man's rights just because a woman claimed something against him during a domestic fight and a military panel agreed with it.

Maybe the law needs to break it down into different levels of domestic violence, some more serious than others, and have a defined window wherein the accused's rights can be taken away.

A man harming a woman so bad she needs to stay at the hospital for several days is not the same thing as a man pushing a woman.

If this proposed bill passes, you're going to see a lot of typical cases that go something like this: the woman was screaming in the man's face and flailing her arms at him and he pushes back, then she calls the police because she wants him out of the house, he gets faced with serious domestic violence charges and the man takes a plea deal for 60 days in the brig, but then his army career will be ruined because he's thereafter not allowed to have a gun. Family fights are not all that uncommon in military families because of the high stress from the job, long absences, sometimes low level PTSD.

 

No level of violence against someone smaller and/or weaker is acceptable.

No one has the right to push anyone else WITHOUT their permission.

By using violence against another they are forfeiting their right to the means to commit lethal violence.

If you cannot control yourself you should NOT have access to firearms.

 

That still doesn't justify what this law wants to do.

I think it really depends on the degree of "violence". A domestic fight that's not too far out of the ordinary should not cause someone to permanently lose their rights, even if one of them does serve some jail time.

If you said that anyone who's ever used any violence in a marriage, in any form whatsoever, can't control themselves, I think that would be close to 1 out of 4 people.

I'm not talking about severe or continual abuse.

 

Someone can be an abuser without lifting a finger. Verbal abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse.

However those who engage is PHYSICAL VIOLENCE demonstrate that they are INCAPABLE of controlling their own impulses. It is that failure to control THEMSELVES that makes them a DANGER to society as a whole.

The law does not convict and sentence someone to prison without clear EVIDENCE of violence and by that stage DUE PROCESS has been served. Once you have been CONVICTED of the FELONY of domestic violence you have forfeited your 2A rights.

 

Actually, once you've been convicted of MISDEMEANOR domestic violence you lose your 2A rights. That's the major issue with Lautenberg, that alone among misdemeanors DV acts as a felony.

 

What about false accusations ?
True account.

A friend arrives home early from a business trip, senses something odd, out of place, strange noises, creeps up to the bedroom window,
Sees his wife with a teenaged boy.
He says nothing right then, then goes to the D.A.s office and tells what happened, the A.D.A. vouchers his gun and permit.
Advises him to wait 3 days, then to calmly tell his wife he wants a divorce.
Emphasis on remaining calm,
He did just that, his wife screamed and spit etc....
And he left the house,
He kept his kool the entire time.

The wife really pissed decides to fix his wagon and reports him for "Domestic Violence" and ends up in front of the same A.D.A. (small town) and tells a totally false account, the A.D.A. tells her to write it all down and swear under oath that it is a true account, she is pretty happy at this point,
Until the A.D.A. tells her, She is the one going to jail, for perjury to start with.
Finally, he agree to plea her out, no charges on her in exchange for an uncontested no property division settlement.
Post fact, two witnesses came forward,
1. Had seen her carrying on with the boy on and off for a year.
2. The woman she planned her perjury with
Proving my friend innocent.

See ?

Also, is tossing a cold slice of pizza at someone as a prank, and later reported as domestic violence really count as the same thing ?

In any matter there be shades of grey, do not be so dogmatic or judgemental.

 

It's incredibly common for women to make up stories about domestic violence, and even more common for gross exaggerations to be made.
I think it's just something that's in many women's nature, when emotions are running high and there's a conflict in the relationship.

I don't have any problem with a man who severely harms a woman, without good reason, losing his rights, and men that repeatedly and continually abuse women probably are not the type of people who should have a gun, but when you're talking about permanently taking away a man's rights for any violence whatsoever, however slight, and based entirely on the claim of one woman who was angry with him, that's something else different entirely.

Also, like our forum member Dr. Who stated, there are different shades of grey. A man's actions against a woman in one situation may warrant different treatment by the law depending on the context and what the woman did to him. For example, a man coming home and slapping a woman out of nowhere is not the same as if the man did that after a fight with the woman getting in his face and screaming and physically assaulting him. In a domestic situation, it's a lot easier for someone to get pushed over the edge, so I think there needs to be more leniency and consideration. What happens in a home between two people intimately involved is not the same thing as something that happens outside the home between strangers. Obviously severe abuse is not okay, but minor physical scuffles once in a while are not terribly uncommon in marriages.

What this proposed bill attempts to do is to turn micro-aggressions, in one's own home, into another excuse to take away gun rights. Remember, the authors of this legislation believe that if even 1% less of the population are allowed to have guns, it's moving in the right direction.

 

He lied on the form twice, he lied about his dishonorable discharge and his domestic violence conviction. The military messed up by not reporting this. Also, those who know him and his history could have reported him when he posted pics of the rifle on facebook.

 

Perhaps if those who are convicted of DV misdemeanors didn't go on to kill their victims that might not have resulted in the SCOTUS ruling as it did.

That the behavior of DV escalates with the use of firearms means that those who engage in DV obviously lack the necessary self control to have firearms. We the People do have the right to protect ourselves.

 

Your anecdotes are not factual data!

 

It depends what type of domestic violence, and the overall pattern of the alleged abuser. When you say "domestic violence" that brings to mind all sorts of connotations, but the reality is that by legal definition "domestic violence" would include all sorts of other things.

I have plenty of anecdotes too. "Domestic violence" is not that uncommon and shouldn't automatically take away from the man's rights. There are more severe cases of domestic violence and that is a different thing.

By your definition of "domestic violence" the majority of men in the muslim world would be prevented from having a gun (By that I'm not trying to say men in the Middle East are violent, I'm saying you're trying to turn any act against a woman, however slight, into an excuse to deprive the man of his rights).

 

Constitutionally speaking there is no justification for removing from felons who are then off paper and not adjudicated as presenting some continuing clear and present danger to themselves and the populace at large (ie adjudicated mentally unfit) their rights to keep and bear arms or vote.

If they're off paper, they should be regular citizens again with all the rights that entails. Period. Equal protection doesn't allow multiple classes of citizen.

If your response is "but they're dangerous when we let them out, they can't be trusted!" then don't let them out in the first place. Or kill them.

 

We are in agreement on the last point.

 

These are actual accounts of friends.
I personally knew the people involved.
You are wayyy too Political and dismiss any account not Anti Gun.

Yet you quote unproven Anti Gun studies.

 

Yes.

Very brave to pass a bill for something that's already required by law anyway.

Genius plan.