There is a reason they like to change definitions and being butthurt.

Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2013 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to revise the definition of: (1) “intimate partner” to include a dating partner and any other person similarly situated to a spouse who is protected by the domestic or family violence laws of the state or tribal jurisdiction in which the injury occurred or where the victim resides; and (2) “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include the use or attempted use of physical force or a deadly weapon by a current or former intimate partner.

Prohibits: (1) the sale or other disposition of a firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking; and (2) the shipment or possession of a firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce, or the receipt of a firearm or ammunition that has been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, by an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking.

via S.1290 – 113th Congress (2013-2014): Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2013 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.

Shannon Watts & Moms Demand are gushing over this more than if they had a wild weekend with John Stamos and a hot tub full of greek yogurt all set.

Moms Demand Stalker

I did a quick check so I might be wrong but it seems Stalking is a felony in 31 states and in most of the rest a second charge of Stalking gets an automatic upgrade to a felony charge. So basically at least in 31 states, you will become a prohibited person with a stalking conviction.

I already have issues with the Misdemeanor Domestic Abuse prohibition since it has been so abused by divorce lawyer and spouses trying to inflict harm for no good reason. Adding one more misdemeanor to federal regulations may lead us on a path of adding more and more and that is a path that nobody will want to face later on as the law unintended consequences has taught us before.

But the really interesting part on this bill is the watering down of domestic partner. The way I see it, you better be a damn good first date and do nothing that can be considered abuse or you will face time in the pooky. Just imagine what is going on in colleges around the nation where now students can be charged with rape even is sex is consensual because she changed her mind six months after the fact.

If it wasn’t because this kind of laws are so prone to abuse, they may make a very infinitesimal sense, but when we have prosecutors that have no problem exaggerating and making up shit to win a case, the potential for misconduct is too great. That much power cannot be allowed to roam free, or better yet exist.

This bill needs to die quietly and the sponsor needs to be smacked on the back of the common sense to see if it starts.

3 Replies to “There is a reason they like to change definitions and being butthurt.”

  1. Note also that they say /federal/ law. Which is a weaseling way around /state/ laws, which is where the bulk of criminal statutes are (quite rightly) to be found.

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.