In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Women's advocates worry gun bill would not have in

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited July 2002 in General Discussion
Women's advocates worry gun bill would not have intended effect
By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press, 7/11/2002 20:33
BOSTON (AP) A gun bill that supporters said would provide greater protections to victims of domestic violence may have the opposite effect, according to women's advocates.

The main purpose of the legislation, approved Wednesday by the House, was to amend the state's landmark 1998 Gun Control Act by allowing people convicted of non-violent felonies and most violent misdemeanors to regain their rights to carry concealed weapons.

The bill's supporters said the law was unfair to people who committed a minor crime in their youth, but specifically sought to create a gun ownership ban on those convicted of assault and battery against a family or household member.

Women's advocates Thursday said this section of the bill would be impossible to enforce because criminal records do not now indicate whether the victim of an assault was a relative or a stranger.

The effect, they argue, is that the bill would restore gun rights to some domestic violence offenders.

''Certain people are protected by current laws who will rightfully be upset if we don't act on this in a deliberate way,'' said Nancy Scannell, legislative director for Jane Doe Inc.

Rep. Timothy Toomey, D-Cambridge, Public Safety Committee chairman and sponsor of the bill, acknowledged that the bill would not cover those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence assaults in the past. But he said federal domestic violence laws would keep guns out of their hands.

In the future, Toomey said of his bill, misdemeanor assaults involving domestic violence would be specifically noted and would stand out ''like a red flag'' on criminal background checks.

''I believe the women's representatives would be happy with having this on the books,'' Toomey said.

The Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence criticized the measure as a ''guns-for-criminals'' bill.

''Since when does allowing a convicted felon to buy a gun increase public safety?'' said group president Michael Barnes.

The new concerns arose as more than 100 women's advocates, law enforcement officials, and victims of domestic violence gathered at the Statehouse on Thursday to attend the fourth hearing conducted by the Governor's Sexual Abuse and Assault Task Force.

Acting Gov. Jane Swift created the 25-member task force in April to review the state's services for victims of sexual abuse, measure the extent of the problem, and recommend solutions.

The proposed changes to the gun law became public earlier this week, just days after the shooting death of 10-year-old Boston girl and a rash of violent crimes in Brockton.

The increased violence led to a sharp debate in the House on Wednesday, as opponents argued that the bill would simply put more guns on the street at the worst possible time.

Supporters said the bill would give leeway to people who have made just one mistake in their youth. Under the bill, they would be allowed to apply for a gun license seven years after the completion of their sentence.

The bill, which was approved 114-32, is likely to face rigorous scrutiny in the Senate, where lawmakers are noting their concern with the domestic violence clause.

''The house recognized that restoring gun rights to convicted domestic abusers wouldn't go over well,'' said Sen. Cheryl Jacques, D-Needham. ''But the exclusion they made is completely meaningless to everyone convicted of domestic violence.''
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/192/region/Women_s_advocates_worry_gun_bi:.shtml

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Sign In or Register to comment.