New Bill To Prevent Stalkers and Exes from Buying Guns

Here’s a tough question: Is it okay to deny gun rights by extending the definition of domestic abuse to non-married exes and stalkers? On one hand, your targeting a specific group of people who have a clearly defined link to aggressive behavior. On the other hand, you’re denying Constitutional rights to yet another group of people in a justice system that can often be manipulated. It isn’t completely cut-and-dry, but a new bill seeks to close the “boyfriend loophole” or the “stalker gap” in the current firearms law that would add those convicted of stalking or domestic abuse to the list of people included in the National Instant Check System.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI)

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-MI)

The bipartisan “Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act” was submitted to the House of Representatives by Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Dan Donovan (R-NY) on July 12th as H.R.3207. The bill clarifies the current law to increase protections for victims of domestic abuse, violence and stalking by barring convicted stalkers from buying or owning firearms and ensuring people who have abused dating partners are also prohibited from buying or owning firearms. Unfortunately, gaps in the federal Brady Handgun Violence Control Bill have repeatedly left domestic violence victims at risk of future violence. The original Brady Bill had no provisions for domestic violence offenders. This was rectified a few years later in an amendment that added the current language adding domestic abusers to the list of prohibited persons.

Currently, the law that prevents those with domestic abuse convictions from purchasing or owning a firearm only covers a certain people. To be exact, the people are prevented from purchasing a firearm when they are convicted of a state or federal domestic violence misdemeanor and “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.”

Congressman Dan Donovan (R-NY)

Congressman Dan Donovan (R-NY)

Because of the specific wording of the law, people who are not married, have a child together, and do not live together are exempt from this law. Also, siblings, strangers, and offspring are all exempt from federal law. These exclusions have been addressed at state level in many states. Some states prohibit the purchase and ownership of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence regardless of their relationship to the victim. This is done by submitting their name to be added to the NICS system, or in the case of Illinois, by also preventing these people from owning a Firearm Owners Identification card (FOID). A few states even have provisions that call for a surrender of all arms and ammunition. Other states feature laws that allow victims to file for a protective order in which they can seek a court to remove the firearms and ammunition for someone who is an aggressor. Because many of the states have varying policies and some inefficiencies, it can be relatively easy for a domestic abuser to obtain a gun.

The new “Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act” seeks to take the Brady Bill a small step further and ensure that all states prevent stalkers and abusers of dating partners from purchasing firearms. Though this is more restrictive than the current federal law, it is still more lax than most state laws, as it only adds two additional groups to the prohibited persons list. Though the text of the bill has yet to be submitted to the public, an earlier attempt by Dingell to pass a similar bill last year made the change by changing the wording to include “intimate partner” and inserting “convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of stalking” into the already established Brady bill.

Republican Congressman Donovan said this about the bill:

When I was District Attorney, the crimes that kept me up at night were the ones that could have been prevented. There are clear warning signs – including a stalking conviction – before somebody commits serious acts of violence against a current or estranged partner. It’s common sense to keep tools of violence out of their hands. I know from experience that this legislation will save lives, and I’m proud to be a part of it.

Donovan went on to add that there have been over 40 different state laws passed in the passed decade to address the issue, five of which were passed just this year. This bill seeks to make a national standard for protecting these at-risk victims of domestic abuse form further firearm-related violence. Congresswoman Dingell added more:

No woman should ever live in fear for her life or safety because of domestic violence. In communities across the country, too many families experience senseless tragedies that could have been prevented. This bipartisan bill makes commonsense updates to our laws to protect survivors of dating abuse and stalking, and ultimately save lives.

Dingell and Donovan also released a fact sheet that added more background information regarding the additional risks faced by women who have suffered from domestic abuse. The fact sheet didn’t give any figures discussing male victimization, how many of the aggressors used firearms, or if the number of domestic abusers that go on to commit further firearm-related crimes against their former partners.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) submitted the companion bill (S.1539) to the Senate. The Senate bill is cosponsored by Mazie Hirono, Democrat from Hawaii, and gun-control stalwart Diane Feinstein of California. Judging by the selection of cosponsors, the bill may not have the same bipartisan support in the Senate.

Altogether, there needs to be more released about the bill before any definite lines can be drawn. The NRA-ILA, the branch of the National Rifle Association involved in legislation and lobbying efforts has yet release a statement or position on this new bill. Since it is so new, none of the other Gun Rights groups, like the Second Amendment Foundation or Gun Owners of America have made official statements on the issue. In the coming weeks, or as the bills progress further in Congress, we may learn more about these bills.

What way are you leaning on this issue? Do you agree with the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act, or think it is just another form of gun control? Let us know how you feel below in the comments.

56 Comments On This Article

  1. BULLSHIT – these laws are already in place. Just more attempts to keep folks from exercising their 2nd. Amendment rights. Punish the masses for the misdeeds of a few. This communist bullshit has to stop NOW !!!

    • Yup sounds like another sorry attempt to make things harder to have/own guns.there are so many scandelous sorry women out. To get even with there partners that this is just what they want.BS on this law

  2. Losing your right to bear arms should require exactly the same due process, under the same circumstances as losing your first, forth, fifth amendment rights, or your right to vote.

    That simple.

  3. Indeed, as the court may not deprive someone of property without the exercise of due process, it follows that courts may not deprive someone of their right to purchase said property.

    It’s who defines what is “dating abuse” that is additionally troubling. I have witnessed male and female partners shouting and making animated gestures of physical violence at their partners.

    If the current law appropriately defines the nature of violent acts, then amend only the categories of offenders that included. Then conviction and punishment should swiftly follow.

  4. Great more gun legislation that chips away at an individuals right to self-protection. Gun ownership legislation actually claims real lives of those seeking to purchase a firearm for self-protection. A New Jersey woman was murdered by her ex-boyfriend as she waited for approval from the state to buy a handgun. In addition to obtaining a restraining order against her ex, Michael Eitel, and installing security cameras in her home, Carol Bowne had applied for a permit to purchase a handgun on April 21. 3 months later, no movement was made on her permit application. The Monday morning before her death, she again inquired about her permit status. She was murdered in her own driveway by her estranged ex-boyfriend who used a “knife”. New Jersey’s restrictive gun laws require a permit to purchase a handgun. The permit process can take several months to complete. Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check told the media a delay in processing the firearms permit application was due to fingerprint information which was not yet received by his department. See, “not received” = mishandled in bureaucratic bungling.

  5. Just from reading the Headline it sounds like being separated by Divorce or break up a person can not own a gun. I saw nothing in the text that changed that thought. So if I am divorced they can tell me I can not own a gun? Even with no record of violence? This needs to be defined a whole lot better, vague wording is why we can not enforce the laws already in place.

  6. Pre disposed to aggressive behavior, damn football, basketball, race car drivrrs, hunters, speedboat owners, male and female with military combat arms. Occupational levels, those who drink too much during live team athletic events, hockey and LaCrosse players and fans, men with tattoos and shaved heads, cops and police, volunteers for swat teams, Employees of Private mercenary and high level security contractors, Production line chicken pigs and cow killers, senators who vote funding for Constitutionaly illegal covert and military killings by funding and those who scream “Bomb bomb
    Iran, covert operatives of what 17 secret gov security agencies, those who participate, includingvthose who lease out the rendition planes for travel to yorture sites, religious fanatics who thump bibles and korans and believe in Holy War destruction of those who believs in genocide no matter the infidels, those who use embargoes that kill hundreds of thousands poor and innocent lives.
    Yup a good legal ploy,left up to determination of a completely corrupt legal system And a society that has bigotry of skin ancestral heritages, religious and super nationalist ofvmy country Right or wrong.
    Aggressive driving techniques tivkets people that protest and do not just sit and nod at political propagana lackeys and hold counter rallies.
    Ya it is so hard to get restraining orders and then force a violation, which in some dtates, depends on social strata, one must turn in weapons and if found guilty of a misdemeanor those weapons become property of state.
    What will become is weapon holders, will never be owners, must be completely vowed and complicit to the police state.
    we are already granting super citizen gun rights to a very large portion of employees of the State.
    Employees who look upon non gov police and military employeesas being civilians.
    I cannot find a true Constitutionalist to vote or support for elected or appointed office as it is, for today an oath of office is to the laws.
    Slippery slope already passed by amending 2nd into self defence at gov will, so yes this will be a good law to further make the individual even worth less to themselves.

    • Has the due process clause of the Constitution been repealed? What rights does a person wrongly accused by a vindictive ex have? We all should know that we cannot prove a negatve, ie: I did not stalk my accuser! Good luck with that.

    • “Slippery slope already passed by amending 2nd into self defence at gov will, so yes this will be a good law to further make the individual even worth less to themselves.”


      There are those who extol the virtues of Judge Antonin Scalia’s Heller decision (i.e., RTKBA is an individual right). When one reads the rest of statist Scalia’s decision, it is a decision that says the government can regulate that right.

      A regulated right is no right at all. A government given the license to regulate an inherent, natural right will “regulate” that right so extensively as to neuter the right altogether.

  7. This is already provided for in the NICs check.
    Every time you let an un-necessary law pass you build another layer of restriction, enforcement, bureaucracy and public expense.
    Witness the mess of firearms laws that California has created, entirely in addition to existing and perfectly good U.S. Law.

  8. Congresswoman Dingell tells us, correctly, that “np woman should ever live in fear..” That true. Nor should any man.
    As others have pointed out, we still have the right tot due process, but the standard of proof in some “abuse” cases often degenerates to the “she-said, he-said” arguments. It’s too easy for a person, particularly a man, to be Shanghied out of his or her rights. Let’s be cautious that we aren’t being trapped by hidden agendas here.

  9. Yes there would, under current acceptable legal standards be a clause, its called conviction…problem with this article and its wording is that it doesn’t appear that people understand domestic violence by definition, seeing as how you can’t in any stretch of the law have a “stranger” in a domestic environment with an aggressor. The legal concept of domestic generally means shared home, also the wording does protect “those situated” including non married partners. This law is just a waste of time burning up more tax payers money in an effort to inflate a few representatives feeling of self worth/ ego. This is why our government is failing.

  10. In state of Washington.when Brady Bill was passed and background checks first employed the Sea-Tac-Oly crowd went way back and reclassified many misdemeanor offences such as simple assault, being drunk in public or causing public disorders from mere and very minor misdemeanors into becoming felonies.
    This surprised many old timers who as youths and young men grew up in a lot rowdier times of either back it up or shut the F up, who had paid minor amonts as fines to many a small town and rural counties “Justice of the peace” appointees of locL governing bodies; because when they went to purchase Hunting License or attempted to purchce a weapon suddenly found they were ineligible because of some youthful over exuberance in their celebrations of being alive.
    Know of 6 cases whereby men who had hunted with rifles found this out well after 30 years of exemplary lives as hunters and honest living.
    So yes for you who value your guns more than Liberty, you should all get behind this law.
    After all you got yours. And to hell with future generations.
    As to spousal abuse physical that is, the laws were originLly passed by white men in order to protect white men and date from times when property and dogs were more valuBle than a woman
    Assault is assault wether in home or even in public, justified if left to the judicial law rulings and their interpreters on the bench and lawyers along with jurors who are today but dum as an f’n rock as to what powers jurors originally had, and after years of accepted idoctrination are but convenience legalist not Constitutionalist and cannot define difference of meaning between Freedom and Lliberty.

  11. Losing the individual right to arms should ONLY be possible by a FELONY CONVICTION.
    If we want to prevent domestic abusers or stalkers from lawful access to arms then we should make those FELONY crimes.
    The loss of any fundamental enumerated individual right deserves nothing less than the judicial due process protections required for a felony conviction.

  12. Taking away someone’s constitutional right because someone ‘says’ you did wrong, is wrong! I’ve seen numerous cases where ex-wives have taken their anger out on their ex-husband (when they actually did nothing wrong) causing them to lose their right to ‘bear arms’. If you’re a cop who got divorced from some angry wife and fall victim to this law, you lose your right to earn a living too!!!

    And, maybe I missed it, but what is the duration for this ‘punishment’? One month? Six? Forever? And what are the requirements? Would the person have to get psychological counseling?

    This sounds like another bit of ‘chum’ to get the conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot…?

  13. According to Congresswoman Dingell’s added declaration to this ‘bipartisan’ bill, it is designed for the protection of females. Is she not aware that many women have been convicted for violence against men? Does she not know that there are many tough, aggressive, vindictive, flat-out ‘mean’ women who are fully capable of inflicting harm on a plethora of men?

    How long will it be before someone drafts a bill to outlaw the issuance of firearms to members of our armed forces while engaged in combat with the enemy?

  14. This will be just as effective as a “Restraining Order!” Again, they are trying to convict without due process. Stop the feel good insanity, and obey the U.S. Constitution.

  15. If the individual who is the aggressor has been convicted of a violent crime, be it domestic abuse or whatever, doesn’t that already appear in their criminal record background check? This new bill seems unnecessary since conviction of a violent crime should already serve as a red-flag. It is as I’ve always said… enforce the laws we already have, and stop trying to make new ones.

    And also… This bill has no time limit. The vengeful ex can, through false accusation, prevent their former partner from EVER owning a firearm. There ought to be a time-limit. Also, what about proximity? If the vengeful ex moves 3 states away, for example, then why are the former partner’s rights being taken away? Seems they are out of proximity to any reasonable harm.
    The truth is that if a person intends to do harm, then they don’t have to have a firearm to do it. Taking away someone’s freedom and constitutional rights should always be an extreme last resort.

  16. Using this method to protect domestic violence victims is like the current protection technique of issuing a “Restraining Order”. A piece of legal paper nor law does not protect anyone UNLESS those laws are enforced. Prohibiting a Stalker or Domestic Abuser from purchasing or having guns, knives, axes, baseball bats, etc. would not keep that person from using their bare hands. Unless our society wakes up and start obeying and enforcing current laws and respecting others rights; then no bans, including gun control will stop this violence. We are getting to be a society without any remorse or responsibility for our actions; that has to change before any type of “ban” will work.

  17. This bill is DOA. Let’s get real, these bills are meant to target inner city urban areas, and they are fruitless. They attempt placate the politicians that represent areas in which gun crimes are pervasive. Also, those guns are obtained illegally anyway as everyone knows. The problem here is parts of our society is degenerating (Urban Chicago, Camden, NJ, etc….). The easy thing for politicians representing these areas “We’ll take guns off the streets”, instead of “We’ll fix the communities”. One is easy wordplay, the other is very hard work and requires a culture and mindset change.

    Random shootings will never go away. If the guns disappear, they’d be replaced by bombs, or other mass terror devices. The problem is identification and early warnings of those that cross a mental chasm from doing no harm to mass murder.

  18. I notice a few NRA puppets responding, as usual.
    I am pro 2nd Amendment and absolutely anti-NRA. A career Soldier, combat veteran and republican. This bill is not only an idea of responsibility, but also an idea of honor and values. The NRA supports states that don’t or won’t require weapons training and/or background checks and/or registration. The other “gun rights” groups will only respond when they hear what the tunnel worshipping, anti-constitutional NRA club members have to say and then, like a tampon, comd out with strings attached. Pathetic.
    When Cecil the Lion was brutally murdered at a preserve by a 4 eyed piece if human inconvenience, an American dentist, NRA and its fellow buttock buddies sided with the dentist. A few dozen current and former U.S. military personnel were lining up to go and protect the animal kingdom from pathetic gun toting wannabes.
    NRA is a nothing but an American version of islamic terrorists supporting their endeavors.
    This bill/law would create a solidified buffer between a deviant hand on a gun and the victim. This has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd amendment rights.
    The NRA IS NOT America’s safest place. The American Soldier and law enforcement ARE America’s safest place. Siding with NRA is siding with islam andwith foreign and domestic terrorist and general criminals.

  19. There’s always at least two stories to domestic violence. What seems to always go unrecognized is what propagated the incident. Men and women are fundamentally different. Every man I’ve ever known is aware of ‘the line,’ yet I’ve never known a woman who has any idea what this is. I hear comments like, “We were just talking, and all of a sudden, he just went nuts!” I’ve witnessed verbal confrontations that become more and more heated over time, until the woman clearly crosses the line, taking the encounter to the next level. She is completely unaware of the change in status of the encounter. But police investigators rarely get to the bottom of the ordeal, focusing instead on the moment that a physical contact took place…the ‘next level.’ You cannot be arrested for a verbal altercation unless certain things take place that alter the encounter…like shouting, “FIRE” in a crowded theater. If you so much as touch another person with your fingertip, that’s first degree assault. All that’s needed now is for the person who was touched to file charges. The person who did the touching can be arrested and charged with first degree assault for what really amounted to nothing, his or her record now tainted. It seems to me that greater care needs to be made to ascertain what actions were taken to escalate the encounter.

    Some people are vindictive, and very skilled at manipulating a situation until it goes to the next level, thus enabling the charges to be made. Women are typically perceived as the victims, which is hardly ever true. They just know how to play the victim extremely well, and often have a design in mind to bring the encounter to the threshold of first degree assault. Granted, there are men who are highly unskilled at verbal encounters and manipulation, and tend to react with violence when faced with a skillful verbal assault, simply because the other person has won the argument. The person who throws the first punch has lost the argument, and proves it by escalating to physical violence. But there are always at least two people involved, and both have to take responsibility for their actions, be they verbal or physical. The accusing voice is also guilty of assault, but this is not recognized by the police.

    If someone is a ‘ticking time bomb,’ perhaps taking his or her weapons away could be viewed as prudent, but the truth is that you don’t need a gun to kill someone…a baseball bat, knife, piece of glass or a rock will work just fine. If you want to reduce gun violence, take the weapons away from the hardened criminals…the ones who have a long record of physical violence. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only encourages criminals to take Carte Blanche with unarmed civilians. When England took firearms away from it’s citizens, within two weeks the crime rate quadrupled…that should tell us something. All of us are capable of violence, given the right time and circumstance, and removing only one means of causing harm does not solve any problems. You can’t legislate justice, nor change people’s essential nature. If we ban firearms, then we should also ban knives, glass, baseball bats, rocks, water, plastic bags, wires, and anything else that could be used as a weapon. Perhaps just wiping out humanity would solve all cases of violence, but who would be left to benefit? The problem is not firearms, nor any other potential weapon…the problem is ourselves. As Walt Kelly said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

    Someone found guilty of multiple violent assaults should be monitored closely, but violence of any kind exists and cannot be legislated away, no matter how many guns we confiscate. A person still has the right to defend themselves, even if they are criminals, and if your attackers have guns, then we must level the playing field. There really is no easy solution here, taking guns away only changes the method of violence, not the net result.

  20. It’s plain and simple no more gun control laws. This is just another step in taking away our 2nd amend rights. Don’t these morons realise that one does not need a firearm to harm someone, a knife does a real good job or maybe a baseball bat. One more law and everything will be fine. Who would want to trust any dummycrat or a rino congressman from NY and Diane Frankenfeinstein, get real

  21. One is stepping on very shaky ground … the courts , Lawyers,and Authorities R Not trust worthy enough to ajudicate ones Gun rights away … example the Divorce laws in most states , sense when have they been fair ?? Until genders R EQUAL in the eyes of the law…. I vote Nay… as for the FEDERAL Government getting involved …ABSOLUTELY … NOT !! Leave it to the states ….

  22. Secondly look at the sponsors ! Look at their Gun rights history ! Check the NRA For a rating .. this proposed bill is just another way the Federal Gov. wishes to diminish american’s 2nd amend. Rights !! IMO this is a Bad Bill .. the Authorities need to do their jobs and the Judges need to stop turning The bad guys lose!!

  23. More gun control BS. No due process. That’s what keeps me awake, the loss of due process.
    There’s still knives, clubs, etc. Make a law to prosecute these people if they are guilty of a crime. Not to make arbitrary rules to deny rights.

  24. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right given to The People. Im plain english that means that the federal and state governments have absolutely no authority to prohibit any US Citizen – for any reason – from exercizing and enjoying the Right that belongs exclusively to them and them alone. The government is free to prohibit the use of firearms for criminal purposes, and to punish those who do so, but such is the absolute limit of their Constitutional authority.

    • You are correct. The 2nd does not give us the right to own and carry weapons. It does not “allow” us to own weapons. It prohibits the government from interfering with the exercise of that right. There is no such thing under the Constitution as “common sense gun cotrol.” Any gun control is unconstitutional.

  25. This is merely one more step toward total confiscation… the ultimate goal of the gun -grabbers. This will do nothing to prevent a bad person from obtaining a gun. The list of those who cannot get “government permission” to own and carry a gun will continue to get longer and longer, until no one will qualify. We should oppose any legislation that infringes our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Period!

    • That’s utter nonsense. If someone decides to kill another they can do it with any number of tools. Refer to second amendment. We don’t need any more gun laws

  26. Does anyone have any doubt that this is a bill to criminalize MEN? Aggressive, strong, determined, brave, and protective. Oh wait, that was our fathers. But, many of us are still in the running. What this bill really does is make permanent victims out of women.

    We need to do away with laws that elevate misdemeanors to felonies. We also need to read the Second Article of the Bill of Rights more carefully. “…shall not be infringed” applies to everyone. (Criminal or Law abiding)

    We have a nation of laws, and they are spelled out in a thing called the Constitution. There is no allowance for the basic human right to protect yourself and your family to be taken over by a faceless, uninvolved government. Let them enforce the basic laws in a way that actually deters violent crimes through the proper punishments. Making more people into criminals for an act of impulsiveness that didn’t incur permanent physical harm isn’t the way to deter crime, it only broadens the field.

    I bet the P.C. weenies won’t be knocking down the doors of certain groups of people who are known for abuse and the actual murder of intimate partners and family to enforce this new set of rules meant to work against those most likely to see these laws as a barrier to their actions. It goes against every rational thought to write laws that are impossible to defend against in a system that demands a standard of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

    We should fight this on the grounds of the rights of the accused and stop looking at this as a “protective” measure. It not only disarms the accused, but it disarms the victim as well. This is the worst of bad laws. No one should see defeat of this bill as a loss. Train the “victims” to protect themselves, and protect their rights when they need to use self defense as a proper last option.

  27. Debbie Dingle (AKA Debbie Ann Insley) is not a stable person. She really never had a real career before she married Congressman Dingle. She clashed with her Father’s parenting style(how many teenage girls haven’t?) and now usues it as a social platform.

    She married a Congressman Dingle in 1981 when she was 28 and he was recently divorced at the age of 54 which is 26 year difference in age, (She definitely has a Daddy complex or a Gold Digger, pick one or both). Btw, How on earth was he going to start a new family and have any children at 54??? He probably just wanted the “Golden Taco Jackpot.”

    She then eventually got a job as a GM Exec….can you say, “Hey Daddy can you give us some Fed Bailout Money?”

    Here’s what Washington Aids have publically said about her:

    “Many Congressional aides privately grumbled that Mrs. Dingell was more like an abrasive, always angling for credit, forever sniffing out power and serially befriending anyone who had it. Then again, they conceded, that pretty much summed up the average Washingtonian.”

    “When she called the National Rifle Association ”a bunch of nuts,” it outraged some supporters of her husband, a former member of that organization’s board.”

    Now she is trying to portray herself the Congressional “Gun Control” Savior? She’d better seek counseling as she probably has unresolved issues.

  28. Darrell D. Murray

    There are examples, in California, where a law was passed if your neighbors are afraid of you and your guns, you can be considered a threat and the police can come an take those guns based on an opinion, filed in a court and an order issued by a judge. You get no hearing or due process, until after you hire an attorney and fight the state over the seizure. All based on one neighbor. This is, how can you afford to fight one case in court, paying an attorney and keep going back as other, gun hating liberal neighbors, express their “fears” of you owning a firearm. Other states, like New York, seize firearms from their owner’s family, after they pass. They’re told they can get a “permit” and have one year to do so, or prove sale of the firearms out of state. What they don’t tell you, obtaining the permit can take over a year in most cases. No due process. Any law does not prevent violence or criminals from acting. That’s why our prisons are full beyond capacity. Anyone who thinks that a law like this will protect them or other possible victims, just are not sensible in their thinking and that my friends there in lies the thought process of the left. It never is about safety or your protection. It is and always will be about control and moving their Marxist agenda forward. Stand fast and firm, protect your Second Amendment rights. Don’t give into their twisted thought pattern and their trying to make it sound like you’re the monster, when you oppose their “Reasonable Gun Laws everyone wants!” They’re only looking in the mirrors at themselves when they take polls and counting themselves twice when they do so.

  29. “The good” Congressman Dan Donovan (R-NY) obviously hasn’t shucked his District Attorney/elitist/better-than-thou LEO entrenched roots. When true-to-principal republican legislators are so sorely needed in places like screaming DEMOCRAT Andy Boy Cuomo’s New York State this guy spews typical democrat anti Second Amendment tripe which extols the IDIOCY that MURDERERS, and other crime tendency inclined SCUM, will be influenced into docile modes because YET ANOTHER “gun control” law will be enacted over the rights of his law abiding constituency. Damn traitor is all he is!!

  30. The Second Amendment reads; “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This clearly suggests that a free state requires the ability to defend itself against all attacks, by whatever means necessary. That is why we had the Cold War…an escalation of nuclear weapons, attempting to establish a balance of power, necessary to achieve Peace between nations and between individuals. Without a balance of power, there will always be a bully who thinks he or she can get away with atrocities against others. Amongst individuals, and this is perhaps more often true, there absolutely needs to be a balance of power. If criminals have guns, then law abiding citizens also need to have guns…the only question that remains is how we define a criminal. We all break the law, whether by choice, accident or ignorance, so anyone who breaks the speed limit is by definition, a criminal…and it gets down to how severe the infraction has to be in order to be to be called criminal? Just because an argument got out-of-hand on one occasion, and a complaint was registered, does not mean that the same incursion will happen again, and to deny an individual his or her Constitutionally guaranteed rights should be regarded as an attack on our freedoms and considered a crime. These politicians in favor of the proposed legislation are attacking our ability to defend ourselves…attacking the legitimacy of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. These politicians could and perhaps should be considered dangerous criminals. A criminal will always attempt to disarm us, or by some method or means, render us unable to defend ourselves. They want to get the upper hand. This proposed legislation is therefore a criminal act, and should not be considered by any rational person, no matter how many may be fooled into supporting it. it may be politically expedient, and may sound good at first blush, but it is a bad idea and will accomplish nothing positive. Those unable to control themselves will end up being controlled by other means. It is the responsibility of every sane adult to monitor and control their actions as well as their statements, and hopefully see the consequences of those actions before taking that final step. We are all of us responsible and will be held accountable for everything we say, do and believe. Watch yourselves.

  31. How long would it be before some liberal judge in America twists or distorts the meaning of this law to suit his personal beliefs? The left only knows one thing and that is to take away all guns as quickly as they can. This would only be encouragement to go further. These liberal judges do not rule based on existing laws. They rule based on their personal beliefs.

  32. I’ll get back to my opinion on this matter when Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, John Podesta, are facing jail time.

  33. I do not like this at all! It is just another form of gun control, as this bill takes away a right given to us by the constitution. I agree with the first poster, you should only lose your second amendment rights after due process and under the same circumstances as you would lose your 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights. This attack just shows how far the left and RINO’s will go

  34. If the gun-shy had not in the past clearly demonstrated a end-justifies-the-means mentality, I might be willing to credit them with good intentions on this bill. They have, and I don’t. Just raising your voice could cost a man his guns if this ever becomes law because it would make her afraid. This will be a law to make more criminals. And it reinforces the notion that a man should never f∆∆∆ crazy.

  35. This bill takes a completely wrong, and obviously ineffective, (based on the past history of similar laws) approach.
    First off, it is patently impossible to expect ANY law we could pass, to prevent ANYONE from obtaining a gun. NO laws restricting access to guns have ever worked on criminals, they only disarm the law-abiding potential victims. Laws cannot prevent behavior, they can merely make it more expensive (in a variety of ways) for those who wish to commit the relevant crimes, to do so.
    Second, the kind of people who are allegedly being targeted by this law are not psychologically stable folks, and are committed to engaging in potentially violent behavior because of this instability. They do not see the world through the same lens as most of us do, and consequently, they will not be unduly impacted by the proposed restrictions. If they actually cannot obtain a gun (which is highly unlikely to be the case), they will simply continue to engage in the problematic behavior with other weapons instead.
    On the other hand, there will be all sorts of “unintended consequences,” which I suspect are actually VERY, albeit covertly, “intended,” infringements on the rights of perfectly stable, non-dangerous citizens.
    In America, by far the more appropriate response to this problem, would be a law that makes it easier for the intended victims to obtain guns/training of their own, in order to defend themselves effectively, coupled with additional, case specific, provisions somewhat like an expansion of existing “Stand Your Ground” laws, that would reduce the likelihood of malicious prosecution of intended victims who DO defend themselves.
    Intended victims who have, or develop, the courage to defend themselves should not have to face prosecution for doing so. However, there is no possible law that can protect those who are too cowardly to protect themselves. That may sound harsh, but it remains true. Just think about this for a minute. No matter how much we may want to help someone who is in danger, or is being victimized, we cannot possibly protect them with the passage of a law – ANY conceivable law. All we CAN do (and doing this is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended our government to do), is to make it easier, and less costly, for our citizens to exercise their natural right to defend THEMSELVES. Laws using THIS approach have relatively little chance of “unintended consequences,” address the behavior of the more psychologically stable individuals involved (hence these laws are more likely to be followed), and do not infringe on anyone’s natural rights. The reason they are almost never proposed is simply that those who propose this sort of legislation generally do so with the ulterior motive of reducing the general prevalence of guns in our country/society, for EVERYONE. This idea is both unpopular and generally unconstitutional, hence almost never directly addressed, at least by elected politicians. However, even a cursory glance at the potential impact of the legislation will reveal that this is the only likely impact it would have.
    The type of law I have proposed above would have the opposite effect – more potential victims would start buying guns to protect themselves, thus, increasing, rather than decreasing, the overall prevalence of guns in the country, and the ease of accessing them for the law-abiding public. This effect is anathema to the anti-gun community in general, and the Democrat Party in particular. You’ll notice that the original drafter of the proposed stupidity is a Democrat.

  36. I think it is good to provide additional protection to those being abused or threatened by anyone that is unstable. I would like for there to be a method of reinstating those rights after a significant period of time without incident.

  37. As an avid gun collector through the years I sold and bought many weapons from some pretty scruffly looking individuals but while doing so thanks to Fed site Ifirst checked if weapon stole, some were, no sale, and also did credit check, even before mandatory backgrounds instituted.
    Durprising number had misdameanor backgrond and counting upon types and ages I may not of sold.
    Yet to this day I know of not one single prrson I bought or sold yo of having commited any crimes of violrnce or beat the heck out of wives or women.
    Although in a few cases I wondered why the hell they didn’t.
    Dp mot condone violence against any juman unleds in life threatening position.
    One reason even beyond old that I am still in more than fair physical shape is that when wife of 45 years got into an especially heatef srhumeny, and we hsd many, is that I woulf get up, go for a long walk/run and then with mind cleared head back home.
    Today with our houses damn near touching, apt, condo, crapola they now sell concrete and steel cave and multi attached shavks, any busy body or those who just get their cookies off can call in a neighbors, domesticly violent fight.
    One thing to remember is that even if not convictef of spousal or child abuse, your ne is still upon record as being sited for or arrested for, those data points pop up even on traffic stops.
    Live life carefully and rstionaly in this day and age.

  38. I’m a victim of a vindictive ex-wife. The Family Court appointed a Doctor who evaluated bith my ex-wife and I at her demand, and found my ex-wife to be mentally ill, and violent tendencies. This did not stop the Court from entertaining her never ending series of legal actions against me designed to take money from me to fuel her lifestyle with her new husband (she was cheating on me). My Ex-Wife accused me of abusing her, when she was the one who was violent. She beat the kids, and she attacked me when she was angry, and yet she accused me of everything she did in Court (cheating, beating the kids, being suicidal). Several times Family Court Services tried to pressure me into signing a consent agreement that said I was beating the kids, and was voluntarily giving up my parental rights so I would not be prosecuted for child and spousal abuse. I refused to sign, and fought my ex-wife in Family Court for continued access to my children for twenty years after we were divorced.

    Violent ex-partners are not limited to men. Men are programmed to not strike back when attacked by women. Men are already at a disadvantage to women in Family Court. In Family Court there is no equality of the sexes. While I can see the need to protect some ex-partners from violent ex-partners, suspending Constitutional Rights without due process will only giving abusive ex-partners another way to torture their ex-partners.