Violence Against Women's Act to Expire in Sept. 2005

[Charles L. Cotton]

The 1995 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is set to sunset (expire) in September 2005, unless reenacted by Congress. This statute should be allowed to sunset, so folks need to start making phone calls and sending letters, faxes and emails.

The attached article does a decent job of setting out some of the many problems with this terrible legislation, so I won't go over it in detail. It does not go into the unreasonable and unjustified denial of Second Amendment rights. I want to point out that even a conviction for misdemeanor simple assault, if committed against a family member or intimate partner, will prohibit you from owning firearms, ammo, and even reloading components for life! What many people don't realize is that if you were divorced even 20 years before this law went into effect and your divorce decree has any injunctive language prohibiting the parties from harming the other, then you're committing a federal felony by having so much as a single primer in your home, not to mention a firearm. Millions of divorced couples, including women, who have never been convicted of “family violence� and who never once raised a hand to their ex-spouse, are committing a federal felony, simply because their attorneys included customary biolerplate language in their divorce decrees two decades ago! This is wrong, flat wrong.

But be ready to face the heat when NOW and others in the "women's movement" argue you don't care about their safety.

Here's the Fox News article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160968,00.html

Regards,
Chas.

[Warhorse545]

I would like to see this sunset big time. I have a friend at work who this effects a great deal. Like you said the language in his divorce paperwork as prevented him from owning.

Stacey

[stevie_d_64]

My wife and I have friends who are recently separated, and are intending to divorce...

Whats interesting is that the husband is a Federal Law Enforcement agent...

I can say from knowing them that there was zero physical abuse from either party, and that the divorce will be a fairly clean affair...No other improprieties (fidelity or lack thereof) is an issue...Although we have an idea what the problems were, thats none of our business...

They are both still good people, and that their problems end with them...

I will of course bring their attention to this possible jeopardy to "both" of them, seeings how they are both firearm enthusists...

[dws1117]

Pardon my ignorance but let me get this straight. If you get a divorce you cannot own firearms again, or does it only apply if the divorce decree contains the language about harming the other and you are conseqently convicted of a misdomeanor crime?

Man I've lived a way too sheltered life.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Pardon my ignorance but let me get this straight. If you get a divorce you cannot own firearms again, or does it only apply if the divorce decree contains the language about harming the other and you are conseqently convicted of a misdomeanor crime?

Merely getting a divorced does not cause the problem, nor is a post-divorce misdemeanor conviction necessary to cause one. The "trigger" for losing your firearms rights I was discussing is the boilerplate injunctive language in many divorce decrees that prohibit any violence against the former spouse. Prior to the VAWA, this type of language was very commonly found in divorce decrees, even if there was no history of violence or threats of violence. With the passage of the VAWA, those folks suddenly have a problem. No party to a divorce now should ever agree to such language, even if it means going to trial and/or appealing the judges' ruling. It's that important.

Regards,
Chas.

[dws1117]

Charles, thanks for the clarification.