Written February 11, 1997
Once again our government is about to apply a double-standard; one standard to which We the People must adhere and another for our keepers. That we don’t already have this particular double-standard is, I’m certain, merely an oversight. Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) has introduced H.R. 445 to correct this lack of a double-standard.
You see, last year as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 congress enacted a measure which would ban persons who had been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from ever owning or having within their control any firearm. The theory being, apparently, that someone who beats his wife shouldn’t be trusted with a gun. There are lots of flaws with this theory.*
This, however, marked the first time ever that significant “constitutional” rights were forfeit for misdemeanors; previously, only felony convictions resulted in loss of rights. Congress also made the measure retroactive. (Can you say “ex post facto” law?) Anyone who had ever been convicted of domestic violence — though it may have been years before — suddenly lost their Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Where does the double-standard come in? Well, guess which occupation has a very high rate of domestic violence against spouses? In fact, the highest domestic violence rate. Law enforcement. Cops. Men who are paid to carry guns. The fact that Law Enforcement Officers (LEO’s) were not exempted was surely an oversight. One that Bart Stupak (D-MI) wants to correct with H.R. 445.
H.R. 455 would exempt LEO’s from the domestic violence misdemeanor conviction gun ban. If passed, this bill would save the jobs of an estimated 60,000 LEO’s, according to the Fraternal Order of Police.
I have a real problem with this concept. Are we supposed to believe that it’s OK to beat your wife if you’re a LEO?
Let’s go back to the reason for this misguided legislation in the first place. This was to protect spouses (primarily women) from getting shot. Supposedly, someone given to domestic violence might just, if a gun were kept in the home, one day go beyond battering and shoot someone. Remove the gun from the scene, so the theory goes, and a shooting would not be possible.
Now let’s consider the situation with LEO’s. These folks are out among us every day with guns! Do you want a person with a nasty disposition and a proclivity for abuse walking around with a gun? The original legislation says: NO. Bart Stupak’s bill says: sure, OK.
If anything, police officers should answer to a higher, not lower standard than the rest of the American people.
The domestic violence misdemeanor conviction gun ban legislation was bad law to begin with and imposing yet another double-standard will only make it worse.
*Why was the Domestic Violence Gun Ban bad law? If an abusive husband is not allowed to have a gun in the home, then neither can his victimized wife. To have a gun in the home would be within his “control” as well as hers so the law would preclude the wife keeping a gun in the home — a gun she might one day need to defend against her abusive husband.
What is Domestic Violence? To qualify as domestic violence under this law a misdemeanor does not have to be called “domestic violence.” A heated shouting match could qualify. The wife throws a lamp — sounds like violence to me. In some jurisdictions simply threatening violence is as good as the real thing.
Inasmuch as we’re talking about misdemeanors here you’ve got to remember a few things. First off, lots of people charged with some misdemeanor which might fall under the “domestic violence” umbrella plead no contest either because of the cost of defending against the charge or just to put it behind them. Husband and wife kiss and make up, the one(s) charged plead no contest just to get on with their lives. Had they known the implications of a conviction, would they have done the same? Interesting note: an amendment was offered which would have required notifying a person charged with misdemeanor domestic violence of the consequences of conviction — loss of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Significantly, the amendment was defeated. Our Congress would prefer that we remain ignorant!
If congress were really concerned about domestic violence they’d make it harder for the more violent people to plea-bargain down to a misdemeanor. Make sure they’re tried for a felony.
All things considered, this portion of the crime bill was more about gun control than domestic violence. An exemption for LEO’s would certainly fit that agenda. The feds are always looking for new people who can be prohibited from owning firearms. It’s part of a continuous, incremental effort to eventually ban everyone from having firearms except the military and LEO’s, who will all be under the control of the federal government anyway.