The Violence Against Women Act Still Doesn't Address This Dangerous Issue

[Jilly_in_VA]

Kira’s boyfriend never actually pulled the trigger. But during the four years they dated, he often used his assault-style rifle and a slew of other guns to threaten and intimidate her.

He would load his AR-15 and point it at her while she was working out on the living room floor. He sometimes threatened to kill himself and described how the apartment would look with his brains scattered everywhere. He often used weekends to clean and disassemble each firearm as he described in detail how he would kill her if she cheated on him. On some mornings, he would tell her how he stood over her with a gun while she was sleeping, trying to figure out if he wanted to shoot her.

“He would always have his finger on the trigger, as if he was teasing me. He would pull back a little bit with his finger, not pulling the trigger back fully, but just touching it and letting go,” Kira recalled. “And then he’d say, ‘You see how easy this is? Just one pull of a trigger and you’re everywhere.’ That was something that he did a lot.”

Kira tried to leave her boyfriend three times after years of physical, mental and financial abuse, and finally did escape. (For her protection, HuffPost is only using her first name.) Her ex-boyfriend was charged with misdemeanor assault and criminal mischief after the last domestic violence incident, and she now has an order of protection against him.

But due to something called the “boyfriend loophole,” people like Kira’s ex could still be able to own firearms despite their domestic violence charges.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/violence-against-women-act-boyfriend-loophole_n_62324f9be4b0d39357c25448
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of course.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

1. Republicans

Wanna keep the boyfreind loophole there because many of them get off causing women to be tortured.

Too many republicans sympathize with abusers that do domestic violence to actually close that loophole thats been left there for how long.?

Was that loophole left there because republicans wouldn,'t vote for renewing it if it were removed?

And republicans hate women especially ones that do not submit to them.

Abusers when found out need to be locked up for life no exceptions.

We dont need anymore psychopaths pretending to be normal people running around free in this country to torture women.

I would feel no regret giving domestic abusers the death penalty.

[smirkymonkey]

16. +1000

[KT2000]

2. Isn't murder and violence

against women more important that the ridiculous abortion debate. From now on I am going to counter that subject with the fact that women disappear - forever, are found dead on roadsides and in wooded areas, in trunks, and in their homes. Conservative men are not upset by that and prefer to espouse their rule over women's bodies.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

3. Thats why I would feel no regret

Killing off domestic abusers.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. Oh, dear lord.

Many, many years ago, I read that the best way to stop abuse is to leave after the first time it happens. It's the staying, believing the lies ("I'm sorry, I love you, it will never happen again&quot that solidifies it. It is all too easy to forgive, to think the unacceptable behavior really is proof he loves you. This is the kind of thing that should be taught in sex-education in schools. LGBTQ stuff is important, but the fundamental treatment of each other should come first.

[KT2000]

5. Yes!

Education! I would love to see a course plan that included the ethical and legal implications of abuse. The RW would scream their heads off because it interferes with their religions.

[Johnny2X2X]

11. That's a great point

Evangelicals believe in one thing above all others, they believe in violence against women. There's no better expression of this than their worship of Trump. They love Trump because of the way he treats women, not in spite of it. They adore the fact that Trump has raped and beaten women, that he's assaulted dozens. They love the way he calls women names in public and puts down their appearance. Trump is their ideal, a man the way they think god created them, who uses and abuses the "lesser" sex as he sees fit. It's the natural order of things for the far right that women are assaulted and abused. to them, the women who Trump raped or assaulted had it coming. In their world view women are little more than slaves to men, to be treated as property, to be beaten the way people used to beat mules.

[smirkymonkey]

17. +1000

Misogyny and Racism go hand in hand with these people. There cannot be one without the other with them. it is who they are.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

21. And toxic

Abusive men will abuse
Every girlfriend they get or a wife.

We are taught to forgive things too much in this country. And often forgive things that are unforgivable. Thats a problem we have as a culture.

[obamanut2012]

33. What in the world does "LGBT stuff" have to do wirth it? And, stop blaming victtims

I said I would never ever let anyone abuse me, I would leave!!!!!! Because I didn't understand a sociopath's mind and how their weaponize love and abuse, and how they isolate you, and how the frog slowly boils.

LGBT stuff? JFC

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

34. Didn't mean to say anything offensive.

Just that if kids can be taught any kind of sex education, including LGBTQ things, then they can also be taught that no man ever has the right to abuse any women.

[maxsolomon]

6. How do you address it?

POS BF here would have had to be convicted of a felony to lose his Gun Rights. He was charged with a misdemeanor.

Gun Laws in GQP America are only going one direction: liberalization. More guns everywhere is where we are, because Gunners care about themselves 1st and women they don't know somewhere far down the line after zygotes.

[albacore]

7. Tony Soprano would know how to resolve this situation if his daughter was the victim. nt

[Jilly_in_VA]

9. How many of us have a Tony Soprano in our corner?

I am lucky that my abusive first husband was a wuss at heart. Also lucky that a BF who abused me (once!), who was of Russian extraction, lost interest when I kicked him where it hurt. He could have had Russian mafia connections for all I knew. (Although thinking back on it now and how his mom pronounced Baba Yaga as "Baba Yuha", he might have been Ukrainian, but Ukraine was part of the USSR then.) Anyway, I got out easy.

[gldstwmn]

8. He's lucky she didn't end him with one of his own weapons.

His mental health issues alone should preclude him from ever owning a weapon.

[Jilly_in_VA]

10. Should preclude half this country from owning one

but not according to the NRA and RepubliQans!

[gldstwmn]

12. All of the Russian money that

went to and is probably still going to them just shows me that having people armed to the teeth was part of Putin's plan to implode the US from the inside. It's been pretty successful.

[DVRacer]

13. What is the loophole?

The example when I read the story at the link had multiple felonies that could be charged. Once convicted of any one of them a person cannot legally own a firearm. Are prosecutors dropping the ball? I have shared my story of abuse from my ex-wife before and am glad she is not allowed to own a gun and want to make sure it doesn’t happen to anyone else. I still don’t understand what needs adding after reading.

[FakeNoose]

18. Well maybe it's because she's the girlfriend, not the wife

The bully got away with intimidating her with his weapon because the law assumes she "could have left him at any time"? So the reality is that an abused woman is threatened and perhaps trapped in the abusive relationship. It doesn't matter whether they're married or not, she's still trapped and in danger. Often these women are unable to pull themselves away or bring charges against the guy.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

22. Financial abuse

Traps women with abusive men as well as bearing the monsters offspring as if that would improve the relationship. Gaslighting,threats they put you in survival mode and the thought,just leave him is made very dangerous and complicated on purpose,by the abuser and the lack of help out there,because republicans block the funding for people they see as low on thier "godly/ natural hierarchy"bullshit

[Demsrule86]

14. I learned in my mispent youth...marrying an abusive man-child in my teens that...you

have to walk away...it is hard and I had family who helped me...the other part is no court in the world can protect you. You have to protect yourself. Learn the laws in your state and arm yourself as you choose.

[Jilly_in_VA]

19. Yeah

Restraining orders are worth exactly the paper they are written on, and not a cent more.

[Bow To The Robots]

15. Just Charges?

Why would we want to inflict consequnces upon someone who has merely been charged as the OP suggests? We don't want any more of that lousy due process? Hrrm, a man far smarter than me once said " careful what you wish for... "

[dpibel]

24. So all the Jan 6 rioters should be on the streets?

They're actually, y'know, locked up in jail. But they've merely been charged as your post suggests.

Or maybe you think taking someone's guns away based on threats is more consequential, or subject to greater due process, than being locked up.

Go figure.

[Bow To The Robots]

25. Again, careful what you wish for.

Due process -- like free speech -- is worth protecting. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. By defending the rights of others, you defend your own.

[dpibel]

26. I see no evidence

that you know what "due process" actually means.

Free clue: Not what you think it means.

Just a quick one for ya: A judge determining, based on sworn testimony, that someone is too dangerous to have guns is...wait for it...

due process.

[Bow To The Robots]

27. Fallacy. Argumentum Ad Hominem.

Please note I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your argument.

Back on topic, the 5th Amendment is unequivocal: No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. And again, reaffirmed in the 14th and codifying the states' obligations to adhere to this cornerstone of our legal system: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Now, let's address your straw man: The portion of the OP's argument to which I replied was the suggestion that criminal charges alone should be sufficient to invalidate an individual's constitutional rights: "people like Kira's ex could still be able to own firearms despite their domestic violence charges."

Charges are filed (theoretically) by prosecutors when they they think they have sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. Yet you argue "A judge determining, based on sworn testimony..."

Not remotely the same thing.

Hence, penalty imposed based merely on a charge =/= due process. And to anybody who thinks that should constitute due process, well... again, careful what you wish for.

[dpibel]

28. Temporary or permanent? Reviewable?

You're clearly a clever and learned person.

So you know that there's a difference between, say, a temporary deprivation of property under exigent circumstances and a permanent taking.

[Bow To The Robots]

29. I'm still not the topic.

Though widely-acknowledged, my cleverness and education are also not the topic of this thread.

Like habeas corpus, we either believe in due process or we do not. The problem with your argument -- in my view -- is two-fold: First is the law of unintended consequences. If we can invalidate a person's constitutional rights by simply claiming "exigent circumstances," we establish exigency as the legal standard rather than duly-enacted law. A dangerous precedent, a very slippery slope. Second, tilting at windmills: Fine let's assume you can legally take the guy's guns. How do you know you got them all? His word? How do you know he can't get one from his buddy? And what about all the cutlery in house? Do we take his clock radio? Their hair dryer? His golf clubs? His baseball bat? His vehicle(s)? The ant poison under the sink? All of these items can be weaponized and can and have been used to kill.

And what about her guns? Do you confiscate those as well? He could get his hands on them, but she might need them to defend herself against him.

NB: A person convicted of a felony may not purchase a firearm, or possess one (legally - but they can certainly purchase one if they want one). Due process FTW.

[dpibel]

35. I'm fascinated

Can you link me to the clock-radio murder case?

[H2O Man]

20. Recommended.

A DV conviction of any type -- spouse, SO, parent, child -- should revoke all Amendment 2 rights.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

23. These fuckers will get guns,

Regardless of laws they'll go to criminals to get another one ,use the gun show loophole or build or buy a ghost gun.

There is no way to get domestic violent assholes disarmed
.

Jail them for first offence
do it again they go to jail for life no parole. Take it seriously.
Or if they cant handle a life sentence kill them.

Everyone will be better off without domestic abusers torturing people.

[H2O Man]

32. I agree.

Now, I've been retired for some time, but I worked with DV (among other things) for decades. I do think that anyone who assaults a family member/ significant other should -- at least -- spend some time locked up. And many should spend a lot of time incarcerated.

For years, I worked primarily with parents who were abusing their children. That, of course, tends to create a vicious cycle. Not always, of course, but often. It is possible, in many cases, to teach young parents the "parenting skills" that their parents lacked. There are interventions that can break the cycle.

Later, when employed at the MHC, I did DV groups at the clinic, and in the county jail. The success rate was, in my opinion, lower than working with young parents. The clinic groups were mixed, with both male and female offenders, and I found that was better than all male of female groups. A few years back, when I was shopping, a former group member approached me to say thank you, the group changed his life, both as a husband and father. But far more were repeat offenders.

While I'm not a fan of our system of incarceration over-all, I do think there is significant benefit in cases of DV.

[Bow To The Robots]

30. Any felony...

Any felony already accomplishes this.

[H2O Man]

31. Yet not all

instances of DV are charged as felonies.