Violence Against Women Act reauthorization

[AlexanderA]

There's a bill in Congress right now to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which is set to expire. There are provisions in this bill to expand the Lautenberg Amendment domestic-violence gun disqualification to include (a) dating partners and (b) stalkers, as well as enable disqualification because of temporary domestic-violence restraining orders in addition to permanent orders. (This would affect lines 11.h and 11.i on the Form 4473.)

The NRA has come out against this bill because of the lack of adequate due process in these new provisions. A vote for the bill will negatively affect the member's NRA rating. (BTW, the NRA supported previous reauthorizations of the VAWA.)

Still, practically the entire Republican caucus would have to vote the NRA's way in order to kill this bill. That's highly unlikely. Is the NRA making a futile gesture, just to bolster its pro-gun bona fides among its own members?

 

[ilbob]

Is the NRA making a futile gesture, just to bolster its pro-gun bona fides among its own members?

That question seems more like a political than a legal issue. The NRA is a very savvy political machine. There are things you can do politically and things you can't at any particular point in time. Right now getting any movement forward on national legislation favorable to gun rights is pretty tough. But in many states it is not so tough. It also seems like right now is a good time to be using the legal system to bolster gun rights at all levels of government. We have been slowly gaining in the courts. It is frustratingly slow, but progress there is also likely to be on more solid ground than whatever we can get quickly from the legislative or executive branch that can be just as quickly taken away if we lose one election.

 

[LRDGCO]

Yes. The NRA's public position is a sop to membership. "Just say no."

Behind the scenes there will be efforts to amend the provisions to diminish their high potential for abuse. But there are so many weak sisters (and I don't just mean Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) in the GOP that I can't see it. McConnell could choose not to take it to a vote, but that would be politically horrific for the GOP.

 

[WestTexShooter]

Yes. The NRA's public position is a sop to membership. "Just say no."

Behind the scenes there will be efforts to amend the provisions to diminish their high potential for abuse. But there are so many weak sisters (and I don't just mean Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) in the GOP that I can't see it. McConnell could choose not to take it to a vote, but that would be politically horrific for the GOP.

Perhaps not “toxic” if no changes made to existing language. Do so on the grounds of lack of due process potential for starters.

Also, by title of the Act, it is discriminatory in and of itself.