An Open Letter To Senators Peters, Stabenow….

 And any other legislator that needs to hear this.

Senators,

Here’s a novel idea: instead of splitting hairs about what constitutes a boyfriend or intimate partner, why don’t we simplify things? 

If you have ever been the subject of a restraining order due to violence, regardless of your relationship to the individual who filed for it, you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm until  your record has been expunged and you can provide documentation of the successful completion of required treatment.  Failing that, you are a prohibited individual. Is that simple enough? 

And while we’re at it, eliminate the three business day provision (this is NOT A LOOPHOLE, it is an explicit provision) in the Brady Act.  Again, make it simple.  Until the NICS system gives a Proceed, a firearm may not be transferred.  Is THAT simple enough?

I am sick and tired of the hair splitting that goes on.  These two suggested provisions are as simple as they come.

Now get it done.

"Everytown for Gun Safety" Inadvertently Creates Pro-firearm Ad...

There is a good chance that you have seen this disturbing ad:

The intended purpose of this ad is to illustrate that many women are killed by an intimate partner and demonstrate the need for more gun control - specifically, to put pressure on legislators to support the newly introduced Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014, which would force states to confiscate the firearm of any person under a restraining order.

Instead, this ad serves to illustrate what those of us in the Pro-Second Amendment community have been saying for years:  taking away one's right to their own defense protects no one - particularly women.

First, it illustrates that a restraining order is just a piece of paper with no real legal authority.  The Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock v Gonzales, states that police are not obligated to enforce a restraining order and that "… the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

Second, it illustrates that, when motivated, there is nothing to prevent a bad guy from obtaining a weapon.

Third, it illustrates the adage, "when second count, police are minutes away."  In the narrative illustrated by this ad, in the time it takes for the woman to call 911 and begin to answer the questions of the operator, the estranged husband has already gained access to the house, pulled his firearm, and, presumable, pulled the trigger.  The average 911 response time in the town in which I live is 18 minutes; in other cities that time has exceeded 25 minutes, and in rural areas response times regularly exceed 45 minutes.

Finally, the ad demonstrates the conclusion reached by the majority in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole." 

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

 Everytown has, with this ad, done an admirable job explaining the pro-Second Amendment position on the necessity to provide for one's own protection.