Two missing words


Everytown made a post about guns and domestic violence that comes from this article in The Trace.


I read The Trace article, and the one after it, My Ex-Husband Used His Guns to Terrorize Me — Without Once Pulling the Trigger.  

In reading both of these articles there were two words that I never saw, and their absence was glaring: Lautenberg Amendment.

The Lautenberg Amendment, the formal name of which is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban.  The is federal law, passed in 1997, which prohibits possession of firearms by individuals:

(8) who is subject to a court order that

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and


(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
The Federal form 4473 which is part of NICS background checks includes questions about domestic violence and stalking.
The common theme of the two Trace articles is “guns are bad for women” but that’s it.  Neither acknowledges that some legal protection for the victims of domestic violence already exist.  So when Everytown says “Federal law does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners or convicted stalkers” in their post, that’s a lie.

3 Replies to “Two missing words”

  1. To quote a famous guy: “if their cause is just, why must they lie?”
    If I were being charitable, I would say that they are simply ignorant of the law. But even if that were true, and it was pointed out to them, they would simply move the goalpost again, as they always do.


  2. So when Everytown says “Federal law does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of abusive dating partners or convicted stalkers” in their post, that’s a lie.

    Technically it’s not a lie. Federal law tries to keep guns out of their hands. Does it actually work? No. Just like federal laws tries to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, but we know how unsuccessful that it. The only thing gun control tries at and is successful at is keep guns out of the hands of good people who want to protect themselves.


    1. A valid point. Just as “Universal Background Checks” will never be “universal” as long as criminals don’t head into FFL shops to fill out 4473s to transfer stolen guns, the law making it illegal for people with DV convictions or restraining orders to purchase or possess firearms will never keep guns out of the hands of people willing to break that law.

      Hey, it’s against the law to drive without a valid, current license, and without valid insurance. How has that fared at stopping anyone willing to risk the legal penalties?



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