Democrats aren’t done with gun control. Not by a longshot.
It seems that despite their claims to let guns rest on the back burner for a bit, they’re still looking at how to disarm more Americans. The latest effort comes by slipping the language inside the newly revamped Violence Against Women Act.
Democrats allowed the Violence Against Women Act to expire last month, saying they wanted to come back with something new and better.
They released their proposal last week, saying they’ll push for enhanced protections for victims of cyberstalking, allow tribal courts to pursue cases on their lands against non-Indians, expand the uses of grant money, and create new categories of people banned from legally purchasing firearms.
The gun provisions are likely to be among the biggest fights, along with long-running disputes over gender identity and how transgender women are treated under the law.
Democrats are aiming for a floor vote in April.
“We must meet our obligation to help stamp out domestic abuse, violence against women and girls, and sexual harassment, and provide victims and survivors with the resources to recover and seek justice,” said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat.
Yet for all of Hoyer’s rhetoric, it’s still a prime example of the Democrats seeking to disarm people.
How? By changing the definition of who qualifies as a domestic abuser.
“We need to get it done,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan, a chief backer of the new gun limits. “We are where we are now and we’ve got to get this bill reauthorized.”
Her proposal would expand the denial of gun-purchasing rights to those accused of abuse in dating relationship. Currently the law denies firearms to those accused of abuse in a marriage, or couples who are divorced, live together or have a child together.
Ms. Dingell calls it the “boyfriend loophole,” and says those who believe they were abused in dating relationships deserve the same protections.
“Right now people don’t understand how easy it is for perpetrators of dating violence and those convicted to still get a gun,” she said at a press event last week. “People with a history of domestic violence should not have access to guns.”
“Accused of abuse” in a dating relationship? Honestly?
I can’t imagine why gun rights advocates might have an issue with something like that. Not at all. I mean, we’re all for people being stripped of their Second Amendment rights all on the words of someone who might be vengeful over a severed relationship or anything of the sort.
After all, it’s not like women have never claimed abuse when nothing has happened, especially with ex-boyfriends. I had an ex who claimed every guy she had ever dated abused her in some way. It’s how she got sympathy that she could then exploit to get what she wanted.
Under this, if reported accurately, she could have claimed I abused her, and I’d have had to cough up my guns.
Yeah, no way this isn’t going to infuriate gun rights supporters.
Of course, once it does, the Democrats will claim that it’s because we support violence against women. However, that’s not true. If these people are that dangerous, then why not make their crimes a felony and be done with it? They’d have due process, an opportunity to fight the charges.
But Hoyer and company don’t want that. They want to expand the net of people who can’t own guns until eventually, everyone will fall under it.