It has been almost a month since deranged gunman Nikolas Cruz walked into a Parkland, Florida high school, opened fire and killed 17 innocent people. Since that horrific day, the left has jumped on their soapbox demanding more gun control, blaming President Trump and the NRA for Cruz’s actions. As the gun debate continues to rage on social media platforms now, one state has just passed a controversial gun ban that has many people wondering if this is just the start of more infringement on our rights, while others applaud the stricter stance.
For years, the second amendment has been under fire by far-left extremists who are hell-bent on disarming the American people. Every time there is shooting in our country, the gun-grabbers latch onto the tragedy to push for more gun control by tugging at the heartstrings of the American people by using arguments that play on emotions rather than logic. Now, the state of Oregon has passed new legislation that would close the loop for unmarried men convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed a new bill that would prohibit domestic violence misdemeanor offenders to own a firearm.
Now, in the past, as we all know it is typically felons that are barred from owning weapons, which makes this bill all that much more concerning. A misdemeanor is a crime, but it is not a felony and restricting someone’s God-given right to arm themselves appears to be a slippery slope. The question that many people could ask is what other crimes could be deemed dangerous enough to strip a person of their gun rights, and where does this all end?
Here is more from Yahoo:
“Despite two attempts from Republican lawmakers to send the bill back to committee, Oregon Democrats on Thursday passed the first gun control measure since the deadly shooting at a Florida High School—and advocates say the measure is a huge step forward for single women.
The legislation, which passed 16-13, is designed to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” a gap in the law that women’s advocacy groups have been trying to close for more than two decades. The legal blind spot, created by lax wording, allows unmarried men who live alone to slip through a federal law preventing convicted domestic abusers from purchasing guns.
“What the boyfriend loophole means is that someone who is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence who only dated their victim, never lived with or had a child together, is legally able to continue to purchase and possess guns,” April Zeoli, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University, told Newsweek.
The loophole stems from the 1996 federal law referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits people convicted of certain domestic violence crimes from owning a firearm. The law also makes it illegal to knowingly sell or give a gun to a person who meets that criteria, but limitations abound.
“Practically speaking, if you have two people who committed the same act of violence against their intimate partners and were both convicted, but one was married to their victim and the other had been dating their victim, only the one who was married would be prohibited from having access to guns,” Zeoli said.
As written, Oregon’s bill expands the prohibitions to include stalkers and people under a restraining order. Although it was on the agenda prior to the February 14 shooting at a Florida high school, Governor Kate Brown credited the groundswell of recent activism with helping it pass through the legislative chambers.
The bill seeks to protect victims of all genders but advocacy groups said its passage is an especially important step to protect single women living in the U.S. A nationwide study from the University of Pennsylvania analyzed more than 31,000 police reports and found that about 82 percent of intimate partner violence incidents included current or former dating partners, while less than 15 percent involved spouses. A majority of the victims in those cases were women, a statistical trend that is consistent across the U.S.”
Now, do not get me wrong I fully believe that if someone commits a violent crime, they should not be allowed to own a firearm, but a misdemeanor is whole other issue, and where will this slippery slope end.
It is possible that other states could see this as an opening to impose more restrictions on those that they deem a potential threat. So, in the end, while this bill seems to be shrouded in good intentions, it could lead to a mess that our founding fathers would wholly disapprove of, and for a good reason.