Most people likely would agree that someone who presents a serious physical threat to another person should not be allowed to possess firearms. That was the stated intent of the legislation aimed at cracking down on domestic violence that was signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer last week.
The governor said the bills are “based on a simple idea: If you’ve been found guilty in court for violently assaulting your partner, you should not be able to access a deadly weapon that could be used to threaten, harm or kill them.”
Just common sense, the governor said.
And she might have been right had the bill stayed within those parameters.
State law in Michigan already prevents convicted felons from owning a gun for three-to-five years after completing their sentences. The new law extends that to eight years and includes those convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault.
A similar federal law protects victims who have been married to their domestic abuser, lived with their domestic abuser, or have a child with their domestic abuser. Michigan, like many other states, intended to expand the definition to include dating partners and stalkers.
But Michigan Democrats made a mockery of the law by failing to put limits on who is subject to its penalties. Basically, nearly anyone convicted of a misdemeanor, whether or not violence was involved, could lose their guns.
Who would find it common sense, in the name of protecting domestic violence victims, to seize the guns of someone convicted of possessing a “prohibited aquatic species?” Or of breaking into a soda vending machine? Or of disrupting a funeral procession? Or of allowing a professional boxer to compete against an amateur?
These are among nearly 200 high misdemeanors and felonies covered by the domestic violence bill. Hardly any of them are a predictor of domestic violence, and nearly all of them are non-assaultive crimes. Still, offenders who present no obvious danger to the community would lose their firearms for eight years.
The shoddily constructed bill amounts to a sweeping back-door gun confiscation effort.
It will treat an offender who makes a false statement on an application for veteran’s benefits the same as it does someone convicted of beating a spouse.
It’s no wonder Second Amendment advocates are skeptical when the left talks about enacting sensible gun regulations that respect the rights of responsible gun owners. This sort of sloppy lawmaking makes it tougher to bring those responsible gun owners to the table to craft reasonable safety and prevention laws.
The courts have taken an unfavorable view of stealth laws passed at the state and local level that serving the hidden purpose of eroding the Second Amendment.
This bill passed by Michigan Democrats is not likely to withstand a court challenge. Rather than go through the costly and futile process of defending the measure, lawmakers should replace it with one that protects victims of domestic violence and stops there.
— Detroit News