I'm sure someone will be by soon with a cartoon to discredit this idea.

Press charges. The State's Attorney can press charges upon credible evidence a crime has been committed.

What NRA are you referencing? the National Rifle one has been behind addressing domestic violence gun issues at least since last year per this snip from April, 2014

As the Huffington Post reports, the NRA consented to HB 1840, a Washington state bill making it legal to strip abusers of their guns if they are served with “no-contact orders, protection orders, [or] restraining orders.” And while the bill was signed into law last month, the NRA also approved similar measures elsewhere, within the last year. Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Minnesota have signed or advanced legislation banning abusers from keeping guns if they’ve been issued an order or charged with misdemeanors, all with NRA support.


Not that they are suddenly wearing all white hats as part of the reason is to encourage more gun ownership for women.


The NRA is obviously the controllers' big enemy and knowing your enemy is a big part of winning any battle. If you don't know what the NRA does and does not support, how in the heck can you effectively counter their agenda? I read a lot of comments from gun supporters here about how the gun controllers don't get much done and at first I thought it was just a mild counter to the routine insults accompanying the controller posts, but I'm beginning to see that there is a lot of truth to the comments.

It's one thing not to know the muzzle velocity of a AR-15 at above 5,000 feet elevation, but whiffing on a easily discovered NRA position shows just how little effort the controllers put into solving the issue of gun violence. Heck man, you didn't even have to leave your keyboard to discover it.

then, yeah, post this in the confiscation thread.

The NRA has categorically opposed any expansion of domestic violence laws to dating partners regardless of how long the relationship has been. I thought the OP was in favor of extending the protections of domestic violence laws to unmarried partners. Am I mistaken?

That refers to domestic abusers, not at all.

That same poster said 'we're coming for your guns..."

Nice try though.

Because they weren't 100 percent on board with every sub-section of every bill it means they aren't doing it? I assume that the vast majority of legislation at the state level involves a lot of give and take and horse trading so how is this action any different? I agree that the NRA is kicking and screaming as they get dragged into the 21st century and giving women equal footing, but even I have to give them credit for supporting the bills now.

When you get bogged down in this level of a purity test it's no wonder so little positive gains are made by anti-gunners. Interestingly enough, there is a form of government that not only routinely passes legislation without any compromises it also confiscates guns. Maybe the term 'lib' in your name doesn't mean what I think it means.

A guy beats shit out of his wife and it's okay to restrict his access to guns.

A guy beats shit out of woman on the first date and it's not okay to restrict his access to guns.

Is that your take on the situation?

The more abusers that lose their rights to carry guns the better. The more people that can't control their anger that lose their rights to carry guns the better.

As I noted, the NRA is kicking and screaming while getting dragged to do the right thing with regards to domestic violence. Are they there yet? No. Have they reversed one of their major positions? Yes.

Per that major position, you are the one that said 'Convince the NRA' and then posted a link to info that shows they have moved in that direction, albeit not enough. Somewhat of a self debating link. Perhaps, "Convince the NRA to complete the job" would have been a more clear response, but in the world of the internet tubes a simple misunderstanding.

Do you have detailed info on what the LA back story was on keeping daters and chokers out of the bill? I'd guess it was linked to some other wording that the LA legislators had a problem with as I don't see much of a pro-choking voting block out there. Note, I'm skipping any LA jokes. Did it have anything to do with evidence of an assault which kind of ties to the old problem of how does a woman prove rape if she didn't get beat to crap during the rape?

This is the kind of reform that provides clear improvement and that can garner support across the board as it removes guns from criminals. Let's team up to solve the solvable problems and we might get to a place where citizens have guns and the USA does not have a gun problem.

That's what you'd like everyone to believe...

The exception being legitimate cases of self defense...and even then it's not okay to keep beating someone after they cease to be a threat.

Of course, this requires a conviction or at least an arrest/indictment. The problem is, far too many people won't press charges against an intimate partner.