Oregon Passes Law Banning Convicted Stalkers And Domestic Abusers From Firearm Ownership And Possession

See, now, if you’re going to pass laws against gun ownership, this is the way you go: going after people who really shouldn’t have them. This does zero to stop the problem as we saw in Parkland, Florida, but, it helps overall

Instead Of Thoughts And Prayers, Oregon Passes New Gun Safety Law

Anyhow, despite the silly headline from the HuffPost, we learn

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed new gun safety legislation into law on Monday, making the state the first to tighten its firearm regulations since last month’s mass shooting at a high school in Florida.

The bill expands an existing law to prevent intimate partners who have a domestic violence or stalking conviction from buying and keeping guns. Until now, the state’s law only applied to married partners, and the new measure closes what was termed the “boyfriend loophole.”

“I’m proud to sign this bill, making Oregon the first state to take action to prevent senseless gun violence since the tragedy in Parkland, Florida,” Brown said in a statement. “Today marks an important milestone, but we know we have more to do. It’s long past time we hold the White House and Congress accountable. Now’s the time to enact real change and federal gun safety legislation.”

Added to this was a prohibition on convicted stalkers having firearms. Despite these being good, common sense restrictions I think we’d all agree with (except those who’ve been convicted of stalking and domestic abuse), none of this would have stopped the Parkland shooting.

(KION6) Although closing what lawmakers are calling “the boyfriend loophole,” with HB 4145 wouldn’t have affected Garcelon’s daughter, she’s telling her story to help people see why anyone with a history of domestic violence should not have guns.

“Nobody’s trying to take your Second Amendment rights,” she said. “The only person who has to worry about this bill is if you’re a crazy, abusive boyfriend.”

And this is the way it should be. Go after the criminals. Not the law abiding citizens. Perhaps national Democrats constantly yammering about implementing laws that affect the law abiding and not the criminals could take note.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Oregon Passes Law Banning Convicted Stalkers And Domestic Abusers From Firearm Ownership And Possession”

  1. I thought if you were convicted of domestic abuse, you couldn’t buy a firearm under federal law. I would have thought stalking was part of that, but maybe not.

    • In most states, domestic abuse only applies for those who were legally married. This Oregon law expands to include people who were dating, living together, etc. A few other states have done this, as well.

      Stalking is often a misdemeanor, which means people do not get reported to the NICS, so they do not get denied. These laws are also a way to take the guns away from people who have been convicted and could be a danger, at least for a time being

      (ignore the emoticons. Came up weird when I loaded page, so I’m just clicking to see what happens when submit comment)

  2. Dana says:

    The important part is the word ‘conviction,’ meaning that the people being prohibited from firearms ownership have had their due process and actually been convicted of a crime. The Constitution allows the suspension of civil rights following due process.

    As nearly as I can tell, this is becoming a suspension of civil rights following a misdemeanor conviction, not just a felony. I have a problem with that: if the crime was serious enough to deserve suspension of civil rights, it should have been a felony, not just a misdemeanor.

  3. ruralcounsel says:

    Actually, “domestic” could even be stretched to include roommates, like in a college dormitory. An “intimate partner” for purposes of 18 USC 922(g)(8) includes spouse, former spouse, parent of a child with the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabitated with the person. It’s even broader for 18 USC 922(g)(9).

    All that it takes to disqualify under federal law is a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. In some places, that means yelling at your soon-to-be ex-spouse.m So that there was a conviction can be meaningless. Some states, this would include things that never went to trial, and just involved a magistrate and a fine.

  4. Hoss says:

    Hardly anyone has a problem with this bill. Again, the democrats rely on daddy government and it’s rules and procedures which failed so absolutely miserably with Parkland – we’ll wait and see if something happens here that should have been prevented under their new law. Hopefully not.

Pirate's Cove