Wall Street Journal – by Ashby Jones
Supporters of tighter gun controls are testing a new approach in their battle to cut firearm deaths: adding gun curbs for people linked to domestic violence.
A pending bill in South Carolina would require someone convicted of a domestic-violence charge to turn in his or her firearms to the county sheriff. Legislation proposed in Arizona would prohibit someone charged with domestic violence from possessing a gun while out on bail. A measure in Missouri would add “dating partners” to those covered by domestic-violence laws and the gun bans that attach to them.
In all this year, lawmakers in at least 12 states have proposed legislation that would make it harder for people accused or convicted of domestic-violence charges to get or keep a firearm, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks state gun bills. The push comes after six states passed new gun laws in 2014 related to domestic violence, including two—Louisiana and Wisconsin—with Republican governors.
The bills are part of a concerted move by gun-control groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, the group backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , and Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group formed by former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , who was shot in the head outside a supermarket near Tucson four years ago, and her husband.
Gun-control backers have largely focused on the statehouses after failing to win new federal legislation in the wake of the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn. So far, they have had mixed success.
The domestic-violence gun bills have been pushed often over the objection of gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association who say they are unnecessary and, in some instances, violate gun-owners’ rights.
The focus on domestic violence, an issue that reaches voters that might not otherwise engage in the battle over guns, “shows a strategic sophistication on the part of the gun-control folks,” said Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Domestic violence “is an emotional issue that people are willing to fight for.”
Those who support the new laws cite a host of statistics highlighting a connection between guns and domestic violence. For instance, Federal Bureau of Investigation data show that 61% of women murdered with guns in the U.S. were killed by male intimate partners in 2012, the last year for which data is available.
Gun-rights supporters say many of the laws are unnecessary given the existence of a 1996 federal law commonly known as the Lautenberg Amendment. The law bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses across the country from owning guns.
The National Rifle Association cites research, specifically a 2006 study by a Duke University public policy professor and a director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which shows that laws banning guns for those under a restraining order or convicted of misdemeanors related to domestic violence have, in the NRA’s words, “substantively insignificant” effect on domestic-violence homicide rates.
Gun-rights proponents also largely object to one type of proposal, currently pending in Illinois and Connecticut, which places firearms restrictions on people subjected to a temporary restraining order. Such orders often are granted quickly and without giving the subjects the chance to present their sides of the story in court, they say.
“Our nation needs solutions that make women and children safer, while protecting basic constitutional rights to due process and self-protection—not politically motivated proposals that ignore underlying problems,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker, in a statement.
Both sides of the gun debate have notched successes, post Newtown. In 2013, gun-control groups won a bruising battle to expand background checks for gun purchases in Colorado. In Georgia, gun-rights groups helped passed a bill last April, nicknamed the “guns everywhere” law, which eliminated a host of restrictions on residents’ ability to carry weapons outside the home, including into some bars and state government buildings.
Write to Ashby Jones at ashby.jones@wsj.com
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-control-backers-turn-their-focus-to-domestic-violence-1423851481
These sick gun control SOBs just don’t stop, do they? What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand? There’s no “if”, “and” or “but”s in the 2nd Article. PERIOD!
We have to recognize that references to the BOR are a waste of breath and ink. For all practical purposes the BOR is null and void. It has been cast aside by those running this country and by an uncaring public, who have allowed it to happen. It can only be re-estabished by citizens with enough fortitude to make it relevent again.