On the recordFebruary 26, 2019
I want to thank my colleague for advancing our discussion here because I think now we are really starting to get somewhere. The gentlewoman suggested an amendment which allows for the transfer of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who has an order of protection issued by a court. That is an extremely narrow exception. Most women who are enduring domestic violence don't have a civil protection order. Part of that is because of the incompetence of the laws in a lot of States, and part of it is because they haven't had the wherewithal to go and get one. But our legislation and our amendment sweeps much more broadly. It allows any woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who faces a threat from their attacker, to be loaned a gun by a family member or be loaned a gun by a friend until the threat is resolved. My friend suggests that there is something ambiguous about the words. I just don't see the ambiguity. Their original argument attacked the utility of all criminal law, saying we shouldn't have criminal laws, essentially, because criminals won't follow them. This seems like an attack on law itself. Law depends upon language. But the language is clear here that if there is a threat and if you are suffering from the threat of domestic violence, sexual assault and so on, then you can get the gun. Who interprets it? Well, you have got the right to go out and get it.…
Source
govinfo.gov




