Dem Senators Propose Barring Alleged Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns

REUTERS/Larry Downing

Evan Gahr Investigative Journalist
Font Size:

More bad news for disgraced behemoth broadcaster Ed Schultz.

He could not own a gun under a new proposal by Senators [crscore]Richard Blumenthal[/crscore] (D-CT) and [crscore]Kirsten Gillibrand[/crscore] (D-NY) to prohibit anybody slapped with a domestic violence temporary restraining order, like Schultz was by his first wife, from packing heat. Current federal law only bars gun ownership by somebody under a permanent restraining order to avoid all contact with the person who requested it.

“No violent domestic abuser should be allowed to own a gun,” Gillibrand said at a Sunday press conference with Blumenthal. “Enough women have fallen victim to this horrible crime.”

Blumenthal pointed to the case of a woman in his home state who was shot and killed by her husband despite obtaining a temporary restraining order against him.

The senators’ proposal sounds just a tad hypocritical coming from members of a party which traditionally favors very broad rights for the accused. Temporary domestic violence restraining orders are not findings of guilt. They do not even require a criminal indictment or arrest.

Judges issues them when somebody alleges, without any corroborating evidence or witnesses, that she faces imminent danger from another person because of his violent threats or action.

Permanent restraining orders are only decreed after the accused gets a formal judicial hearing, usually within 14 days of the temporary edict.

Gillibrand also falsely stated that “Under current law, even domestic abusers who have been tried and convicted of their violent crimes are allowed to buy guns.”

Actually, gun ownership by anybody convinced of domestic violence has been illegal under federal law since 1997.

In 2014, the Supreme Court even voted unanimously in 2014 to broaden the definition of “domestic violence” to include even “minor uses of force,” like pushing or shoving, that “may not constitute ‘violence’ in the generic sense.”