Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 1520

Should Convicted Stalkers be Kept From Owning Guns?

Argument in favor

Protecting victims of stalking and domestic abuse from gun violence means creating laws that keep guns out of the hands of stalkers and domestic abusers. This bill merely broadens existing law by including convicted stalkers.

John's Opinion
···
08/27/2015
Absolutely! Why is this even a question? Stalkers and domestic abusers rarely just stop being dangerous. They tend to escalate over time. How many innocent lives were lost because no one took their stalker seriously? Any number higher than zero is too many. I'm all for gun rights but when you show yourself to be this dangerous and obsessive, you forfeit that right.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
···
12/10/2015
Stalking, along with any cases of domestic violence, should prevent people from owning guns.
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Moni's Opinion
···
01/08/2016
No duh. Why would I want someone I got a restraining against for stalking me to be able to get a gun?
Like (8)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Making it a crime for a person to knowingly give a gun or ammunition to a person that they know or believe has been convicted of domestic violence could potentially give innocent people a criminal record.

PacificCstar's Opinion
···
08/19/2015
If they are immoral enough to stalk you, they are immoral enough to obtain a gun illegally. Stop trying to flank the second amendment with fear tactics.
Like (21)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
08/21/2015
No. Not necessary as any serious conviction already comes with a firearm ban. If the conviction was not serious, then their fundamental right to possess a firearm should not be infringed.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
Buster's Opinion
···
08/19/2015
Just another thinly veiled attempt at gun control there are already laws in place that cover this only a weak minded politicians could come up with this Garbage
Like (7)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedJune 4th, 2015

What is Senate Bill S. 1520?

This bill would expand the protections granted to spouses under domestic and family violence laws to also include intimate partners and dating partners. It would also expand the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include when a current or former intimate partner attempts to use physical force or a deadly weapon on their significant other.

As the law stands today, people with convictions of "misdemeanor domestic violence" are prohibited from purchasing firearms. By expanding the definition of this crime, this legislation would be adding convicted stalkers to the list of people who are not allowed to buy firearms.

This bill also bans people from selling or giving firearms (or ammunition) to a person who they know — or have reasonable suspicion to believe — have been convicted of domestic violence.

Impact

Victims and perpetrators of domestic violence and stalking, gun retailers, and related federal agencies.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 1520

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In Depth: Supporters of the bill leverage these stats:

"Domestic abusers who have access to guns are over seven times more likely to kill their partners than those who don't have such access. A report released by the Center for American Progress last week shows that stalkers and physically abusive dating partners can be just as deadly as a violent spouse. One study of female murder victims in 10 cities found that three-quarters of the women killed, and 85 percent of women who survived a murder attempt by a current or former intimate partner, had been stalked in the previous year. And almost half of all intimate-partner homicides are committed by a non-married, non-cohabitating dating partner who was not covered by federal gun restrictions."
On the other hand, firearm advocates see this legislation as a manipulation of emotionally compelling subject matter to set down federal gun regulations. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has offered opposition:  
"Stalking' offenses do not necessarily include violent or even threatening behavior. Under federal law, for example, stalking includes 'a course of conduct' that never involves any personal contact whatsoever, occurs wholly through the mail, online media, or telephone service, is undertaken with the intent to 'harass' and would be reasonably expected to cause (even if it doesn't succeed in causing) 'substantial emotional distress' to another person."

Media:

(Photo Credit: Shutterstock user DrimaFilm)

AKA

Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2015

Official Title

A bill to protect victims of stalking from violence.

    Absolutely! Why is this even a question? Stalkers and domestic abusers rarely just stop being dangerous. They tend to escalate over time. How many innocent lives were lost because no one took their stalker seriously? Any number higher than zero is too many. I'm all for gun rights but when you show yourself to be this dangerous and obsessive, you forfeit that right.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    If they are immoral enough to stalk you, they are immoral enough to obtain a gun illegally. Stop trying to flank the second amendment with fear tactics.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    Stalking, along with any cases of domestic violence, should prevent people from owning guns.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Not necessary as any serious conviction already comes with a firearm ban. If the conviction was not serious, then their fundamental right to possess a firearm should not be infringed.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    No duh. Why would I want someone I got a restraining against for stalking me to be able to get a gun?
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Just another thinly veiled attempt at gun control there are already laws in place that cover this only a weak minded politicians could come up with this Garbage
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    If you are not a stalker this will not effect you... It never ceases to amaze me just how many common sense gun laws will be/have been 'shot down' by paranoid right wingers
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes convicted stalkers should be prevented from owning guns. A majority of people killed as a result gun violence is by someone they know--an ex-spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, or estranged family member. Keeping guns out of the hands of these dangerous individuals will save many innocent lives.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    They have already proved they are not to be trusted.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Would you like to be stalked by a person with a gun? No? Alright, we're agreed, this should be passed.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Are you kidding me?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    If you commit a crime you are not afforded the same privileges like having a firearm.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Once again federal politicians think a determined criminal won't be able to get a weapon of any type. Where are your brains? Do you have any? All the legislation in the world won't stop crazy criminals from their goals. Jail is a temporary interference. How about prison terms!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Common sense, please.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I read that felony stalking already carries the provision of not owning a firearm. So now you're wanting this to apply to misdemeanors SO YOU CAN DEPRIVE MORE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? Before you know it, you'll take that right away from us if we criticize you! We're not ALL stupid! We know how badly the Leftists want to disarm Americans, in spite of the lies they tell us! Me thinks the Democrats protest too much! PEOPLE, WE NEED TO TENACIOUSLY FIGHT FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! ICYMT: The Real Agenda Behind Obama's Gun Control https://youtu.be/XIdqpArsssY While everyone's thinking and talking about these "watch lists," let's flash back to 2012 and listen to President Obama. And keep in mind that Congress recently passed the NDAA 2017, which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial. http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06/ndaa-2017-includes-draft-for-women-indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens.html Many of you may remember that President Obama had no problem signing the NDAA 2012 in 2011, which legalized the indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of ties to #terrorism. The indefinite detention provision is still contained in the NDAA, and has been approved by Congress and signed by President Obama every year since it first passed. Note the phrase "suspected of ties to terrorism"! Pre-crime incarceration??? You get detained not for what you've done, but for what you MIGHT do! And the government doesn't even need "precogs"! How about that?! And let's now factor in the words of DHS' Jeh Johnson, who now claims that GUN CONTROL is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue! VIDEO: https://youtu.be/bhJpzY-QAEg And if you're perceived by the government to be a potential "right wing extremist," you're probably on a watch list, and they are going to prevent you from possessing a firearm, AND you might even get locked up indefinitely just on the basis of your browser history, or rather the lack thereof [the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" (in the House)] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150606/16191831259/according-to-government-clearing-your-browser-history-is-felony.shtml http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/7/1391323/-Clear-your-browser-history-and-spend-20-years-in-prison After ‘Terror Watchlist’ Disarmament, ‘Haters’ will be Next in Line https://www.oathkeepers.org/after-terror-watchlist-disarmament-haters-will-be-next-in-line/ SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUN New 'rules' would suspend 2nd Amendment even for 'outpatient' treatment http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/01/see-a-shrink-lose-your-gun/#! She Just Gave Obama the BEST Response to #Orlando Shooting, "No we Don't..." President Obama’s response to the Orlando attack was weak which pretty much everyone expected. He is still afraid to use the term radical #Islam and was pretty indignant about it. Also, he got more energized about blaming the #2ndAmendment and #Republicans for the problem than he did talking about the problem of radical Islam. Bottom line, the man clearly doesn’t understand or prioritize the threat we face. [Oh, I think he understands the threat; I just think his priorities don't jibe with those of conservative Americans!] He also told America that we need to do some “soul searching” about how easy it is to get guns. *************************************************** [The POTUS needs to do some soul searching about all the poorly vetted, or unvetted, Muslims he is bringing into our country, and all the criminal illegal aliens he has been allowing to cross our border and those he has been releasing from our prisons! The oath of office of the President of the United States is the oath or affirmation prescribed by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article II, Section One, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Although not required, presidents have traditionally palmed a Bible while swearing the oath and have added, "So help me God!" to the end of the oath.) My point is that "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" just HAPPENS to include the SECOND AMENDMENT! Yet, Obama has been doing his dead-level best to SHRED the Constitution of the United States!] *************************************************** Well, conservative pundit #DanaLoesch didn’t like that very much. She went after the president on Twitter. Hard. No "we" don't. The Islamic terrorists who keep murdering people do. https://t.co/HEQxSgiiPu — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 13, 2016 "We need to do some soul searching" says the president who gave guns to Mexican drug cartels and Garland Islamic terrorist Nadir Soofi. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 13, 2016 "We need to do some soul searching" says the president who released terrorists back to the battlefield to kill our troops. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 13, 2016 Nailed it. As usual. President Obama believes that guns kill people on their own and that criminals follow the law. Both are of course not true. It is hard for the American people to take Obama seriously on guns when he clearly has no idea what he is talking about. http://www.youngcons.com/white-house-press-secretary-josh-earnest-stumbles-badly-while-trying-to-explain-what-an-assault-rifle-is/ Another blistering take down by Dana. H/T Western Journalism http://www.westernjournalism.com/dana-loesch-takes-aim-at-obamas-call-for-america-to-do-some-soul-searching-after-orlando/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2016-06-14&utm_campaign=manualpost http://www.youngcons.com/dana-loesch-skewers-obamas-comment-that-we-need-to-do-some-soul-searching-on-guns/ Bigots? No, Heroes: U.S. Gun Owners Everywhere Offering FREE Shooting Lessons to Gays In the wake of the terrorist attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, some are arguing that the American gun community -- and its overlapping "homophobia" -- is to blame. Well, law-abiding gun owners haven't had time to respond, because they are too busy offering to teach gays -- and anyone else, for that matter -- how to shoot. And they are offering to cover all expenses. http://www.chicksontheright.com/this-response-to-help-lgbt-people-learn-gun-safety-is-overwhelming/ Read this wonderful post going viral across the country right now: Yesterday, Mr. CJ told me about a post from an acquaintance of his on Facebook named Erin Palette who was compiling a list of friends willing to teach firearm safety to others for free –particularly to members of the LGBT community. Take them to the gun range, pay for their range time and ammo, teach them about guns and how to handle them safely – all of it. And these wouldn’t necessarily be whole classes on gun safety. These would be individuals who want to learn the basics of gun safety and gun laws, but don’t know where to start. Basically, that post BLEW UP -- over a hundred (at last count that I could tell) people volunteering their time, expertise, and expense to help total strangers learn how NOT to be the next ISIS terrorist’s victim. Remind me how America is a super-intolerant and bigoted country, again? … And that’s when Erin got the idea. She put the question to her Facebook followers. Would any of them be willing to teach someone -- particularly someone from the LGBT community -- interested in learning about guns and gun safety and possibly getting their CCW permit in their state? Ask the internet hive mind (as it were). Surely there would be some response. Holy crap, did people respond. Almost instantly. IN DROVES. Palette is a transgendered gun writer. I just put my name on the list as a potential trainer. If you are trained -- or just want to donate funds -- then right now, go send a message to ISIS and to the bigots tarring law-abiding gun owners about the real America. https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/15/bigots-no-heroes-u-s-gun-owners-everywhere-offering-free-shooting-lessons-to-gays/ The 2nd Amendment Is What Makes The Other Nine Possible http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2013/01/15/the-2nd-amendment-is-what-makes-the-other-nine-possible/#721f1d0c1494
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Hence the word "Stalker".....I have never heard of a safe and trusting stalker with only great intentions for his /her PREY... Absolutely NO guns for Stalkers
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems logical but I have to disagree. I think "stalker" is too easy a label to apply.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill would need to be more specific in terms of the history of the stalker. If the stalker has any anger management or any past history with anything to do violent, then they should be prevented from acquiring weapons.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    No evidence that stalkers resort to gun violence because they stalk. Normal gun laws should apply. If normal laws are insufficient, they should be changed for all, not just stalkers.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill applies to those convicted. While we're on the subject, can we also enforce the gun laws we already have instead of making new ones? That is a better solution than making new ones.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE