22 Mar 21
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2021/03/172-republicans-vote-against-violence-against-women-act-one-day-after-8-women-massacred-by-sex-addicted-gunman/
172 House Republicans voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act Wednesday, just 24 hours after eight people – including seven women, six of Asian decent – were gunned down in a shooting spree at a series of Atlanta spas by a shooter who is now claiming he has a sex addiction.
The legislation passed 244-172, with a mere 29 Republicans joining Democrats to support the bill. No Democrat voted against it. The bill now heads to the Senate.
23 Mar 21
So, why did they vote against it?
"The measure, which seeks to provide state and local funding for programs assisting victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking as well as close the so-called boyfriend loophole for gun purchases, passed by a vote of 224-172."
...
One point of contention has been a provision that would extend restrictions preventing spouses or formerly married partners convicted of domestic violence or abuse from purchasing firearms to also include dating partners.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, is working on a GOP alternative to the measure in the Senate as Republicans and the National Rifle Association have objected to the firearm provision.
“Certainly we ran into hiccups with some of the gun issues and that’s a big one for a number of us,” Ernst said. “Stripping away people’s constitutional rights is not something that we should be doing.”"
https://www.breitbart.com/news/house-passes-renewed-effort-to-reauthorize-violence-against-women-act/
23 Mar 21
@philokalia saidAnd Republicans object to this....why?
One point of contention has been a provision that would extend restrictions preventing spouses or formerly married partners convicted of domestic violence or abuse from purchasing firearms to also include dating partners.
23 Mar 21
@philokalia saidI don’t understand what it means.
So, why did they vote against it?
"The measure, which seeks to provide state and local funding for programs assisting victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking as well as close the so-called boyfriend loophole for gun purchases, passed by a vote of 224-172."
...
One point of contention has been a provision that would extend restri ...[text shortened]... ttps://www.breitbart.com/news/house-passes-renewed-effort-to-reauthorize-violence-against-women-act/
Can you explain it? Who exactly isn’t allowed to buy guns?
23 Mar 21
@philokalia saidI still don’t understand.
Because it would mean that if your husband was convicted of some form of domestic abuse 20 years ago, you still would not be able to buy a gun yourself.
It limits your constitutional rights based on who you are associated with.
Why is an anti-gun law in a bill against violence to women?
Or are there many cases of these guns being taken by former abusers and being used on the women?
The post that was quoted here has been removedBut he can own a baseball bat, a kitchen knife and rope?
I can fully understand anti-gun laws.
I can fully understand anti-abuse laws.
But I hardly think much abuse is done by men using their partner’s guns.
Abuse is usually about power and a gun, if used, is generally too fast an escalation.
Also, if he wants to shoot his partner, there are other guns he can borrow.
If a man abused a woman 20 years earlier, got caught, served his time and has bettered his ways, I don’t see why he can’t own a gun (other than I don’t think people should have guns in home anyway).
23 Mar 21
@shavixmir saidShav, in America, an ex-con can't even vote, but Republicans are so worried about the "slippery slope" of removing ANYone's right to get a gun.
But he can own a baseball bat, a kitchen knife and rope?
I can fully understand anti-gun laws.
I can fully understand anti-abuse laws.
But I hardly think much abuse is done by men using their partner’s guns.
Abuse is usually about power and a gun, if used, is generally too fast an escalation.
Also, if he wants to shoot his partner, there are other guns he can borro ...[text shortened]... don’t see why he can’t own a gun (other than I don’t think people should have guns in home anyway).
And, also in America, guns are the weapon of choice, mainly because most Americans barely have the muscle strength to pull a trigger. You're not gonna see them wielding bats or ropes. Guns allow them to remain distanced from their victims. God forbid they should see them as human, to look them in the face as they die. Guns do accelerate any conflict into life or death, so many get shot even when that wasn't the original intent.
23 Mar 21
@suzianne saidYes. I understand that about guns.
Shav, in America, an ex-con can't even vote, but Republicans are so worried about the "slippery slope" of removing ANYone's right to get a gun.
And, also in America, guns are the weapon of choice, mainly because most Americans barely have the muscle strength to pull a trigger. You're not gonna see them wielding bats or ropes. Guns allow them to remain distanced from the ...[text shortened]... elerate any conflict into life or death, so many get shot even when that wasn't the original intent.
However, abuse of one's spouse isn't a distance thing. It's close up power-abuse.
And guns don't fit the scheme (as far as I can tell).
Anyways, that (ex-)cons can't vote is extremely malicious. They may well have been convicted of something that is no longer illegal or even something they, themselves, think should be legal, and they can't do anything about it.
23 Mar 21
@philokalia saidSimilar laws already exist.
Because it would mean that if your husband was convicted of some form of domestic abuse 20 years ago, you still would not be able to buy a gun yourself.
It limits your constitutional rights based on who you are associated with.
In New Jersey, gun ownership is not allowed if you live with a convicted felon.
If the wife of a convicted sex offender wants to adopt a child, the adoption agency may legally deny that woman's application.
Some government jobs will deny security clearance based on a spouse's history.
And so on. If similar laws are already on the books, wouldn't it make sense to similar laws of to households with someone convicted of domestic violence?