![\"Gabby](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/03\/Gabby-and-a-gun-300x240.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\nSo, former Congresswoman, Gabriel Giffords who has made it her life’s work to grab guns from law abiding citizens took to the pages of CNN<\/a> this week to declare that gun laws endanger women because of this dude in Houston, Ron Lee Haskell who tragically murdered 4 children and two adults. <\/p>\n This month, just outside of Houston, a man police say had a history of abusing and threatening women got his hands on a gun and executed six members of his ex-wife’s family — including four children. On that day, local law enforcement officials believe he was on his way to hunt down other family members when, thankfully, they ended his rampage.<\/p>\n In our country, it’s a sadly common story: An abuser or stalker gains access to guns and destroys the lives of women and families in our communities.<\/p>\n That’s why it is time for Congress to address this lethal mix of domestic violence and guns. Our leaders must pass laws that prevent stalkers and abusers from accessing guns to intimidate, hurt or kill women.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While I agree with her that criminals who have been proven so in the courtroom, Haskell is the wrong example to use. According to Salon, who actually asks the question in their headline “How Did He Get a Gun?<\/a>” without answering it, Haskell was under a restraining order;<\/p>\n To no one\u2019s great surprise, Haskell had been arrested for domestic violence in 2008, and his ex-wife filed a protective order against him in 2013. All of which leads to the question: Considering the laws put in place, both on federal and state levels, to prevent domestic abusers from getting guns, how did Haskell get one?<\/p>\n While we don\u2019t know yet if the gun Haskell used was legally obtained, Hannah Levintova and Dana Liebelson put together a chilling report at Mother Jones that shows that, due to multiple loopholes that the NRA fiercely lobbies to protect, \u201chis case appears to be the latest example of how easy it remains for domestic abusers to possess firearms, thanks to weak legislation.\u201d\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yeah, well, there’s form that every gun buyer fills out when he buys a gun, the ATF-4473 which asks questions in regards to that. Here’s a copy;<\/p>\n See the question down there in paragraph (h)? It asks if you are subject to a restraining order. Question (i) asks if you’ve EVER been convicted of domestic abuse – so the answer to Salon’s question is “He got the gun illegally” because of a gun control law. No matter how Haskell got the gun – it was illegal already.<\/p>\n So, Giffords continues;<\/p>\n Between 2001 and 2012, more women were shot to death by an intimate partner in our country than the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. That is a national shame.<\/p>\n Fortunately, the momentum is on our side. On Wednesday, the Senate will hold its first-ever hearing on domestic violence homicides and the use of gun violence against America’s women. Many of our elected leaders are calling for new protections for those who are subject to abuse. States are already taking bipartisan action. And Americans support these laws by staggering margins.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since she’s using the example of Haskell and not telling us the truth about how he got a gun, it seems reasonable to me that no more laws would have helped in that case, unless they want to pass a law that expedites permission for a woman to arm herself if she’s been threatened.<\/p>\n Currently, federal law prevents people who are under domestic violence protection orders or have misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from accessing guns. But even though increasing numbers of couples are choosing to marry later in life, the law hasn’t been extended to address dating partner abuse. And convicted stalkers can still get guns.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Well, the question on the ATF 4473 says “intimate partner”, it doesn’t say “wife” “ex-wife” or “gay lover” – “intimate partner” seems to me to address “dating partner abuse”, there, Gabby.<\/p>\n Common sense says that these dangerous loopholes should be closed now. Congress has the power to do it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Like the gun show loophole needs to be closed.<\/p>\n My problem with this law is not that I want women to be less safe, the gun control activists want to relieve people of their gun rights without Fourth Amendment protections of due process. They want to take away people’s guns rights by simply filing a piece of paper with the court – it’s happened once to me but it wasn’t a domestic situation. It was pure vindictiveness. It amounted to punishment without my day in court.<\/p>\n And what’s the point anyway if there are already laws on the books? I wouldn’t trust this Congress to change toilet paper rolls in the men’s room, let alone let them write gun laws – and Gabby Giffords is good example of the disingenuous denizens of that legislative body. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"atf](\"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/atf-4473-300x193.jpg\")
<\/a><\/center><\/p>\n