Gun Control

The NRA Is Right About the Violence Against Women Act

The House version of the reauthorization bill includes new gun restrictions that sweep too broadly.

|

After the National Rifle Association urged legislators to oppose the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that the House approved last week, Amy Klobuchar said the organization had shown its true colors. The Minnesota senator, who is seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, claimed the NRA's position "shows where they are when it comes to safety and when it comes to protecting women."

The NRA, in other words, does not care about violence against women, or at least it does not care enough to accept the new gun control provisions in the House version of the bill. This blithe dismissal of the NRA's legitimate complaints about those provisions makes Klobuchar, a former prosecutor, sound like an authoritarian demagogue who equates concern about civil liberties with indifference to crime.

Criticism of the NRA's opposition to the bill has focused on the least objectionable gun provision, which would close the so-called boyfriend loophole by expanding the list of violent misdemeanors that disqualify people from owning firearms. Those crimes currently include violence against a boyfriend or girlfriend only if he or she has cohabited or produced a child with the perpetrator—a requirement that makes little sense if the aim is to disarm people who are inclined to assault intimate partners.

The provision dealing with protective orders is more problematic. Under current law, people subject to such orders may not possess guns, but only when they have had an opportunity to contest claims that they pose a threat.

The House bill would expand the disqualification to ex parte orders, which are issued without a hearing, can last a few weeks, and may be renewable after that. That change should trouble anyone who cares about due process, since it takes away people's constitutional rights based on allegations they have had no chance to rebut.

Another provision of the House bill is even more far-reaching. It would permanently deprive someone of his Second Amendment rights if he has been convicted of misdemeanor stalking, a crime that need not involve violence, threats, or even a victim the offender knows.

In Pennsylvania, for example, someone can be guilty of misdemeanor stalking if he "repeatedly commits acts toward another person," including communications, that "cause substantial emotional distress." Stalking laws in states such as Arizona, Colorado, and New York likewise encompass repeated communications that cause emotional distress.

As NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker noted, such stalking could involve "harassing messages" on Facebook or nasty posts on Twitter. This sort of stalking is pretty far afield from "violence against women."

It is doubtful that people convicted of such misdemeanors, especially if they involve remote contact with victims they have never met, have demonstrated violent tendencies that should forever disqualify them from exercising the constitutional right to armed self-defense. But instead of making the case for such a broad exclusion, the bill's backers suggest that questioning it is tantamount to siding with wife beaters and girlfriend murderers.

Before the House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared, "Members have a decision to make: will they protect survivors of stalking & domestic abuse? Or are they willing to allow their convicted stalkers & abusers to have access to firearms?"

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a presidential contender, deemed the NRA's criticism "absolutely outrageous." Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) insisted, "I am not someone who wants to take people's guns away," although that is what the bill she supports would do.

"I am not paying attention to the rhetoric of the NRA because I can't be distracted," said Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.). "What's most important is putting forth good legislation to save as many lives as we can."

This casual disregard for civil liberties is reminiscent of Donald Trump's recommendation, during a meeting last year with members of Congress, that police should "take the guns first, go through due process second." When it comes to sacrificing constitutional rights in the name of public safety, Democrats see eye to eye with the president.

© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: Activists Disrupt Law Professor's Talk at the University of Chicago

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Common sense gun policy:

    1. I will protect and defend your freedom of speech even if you use it against me. I will not however extend you the same courtesy on guns.

    2. Don’t tell me you need a gun to protect me and then call me ‘moron’.

    1. I would not protect you, but I will call you a moron.

    2. “I will protect and defend your freedom of speech even if you use it against me. I will not however extend you the same courtesy on guns.”

      Huh, if only we had some kind of policy preventing people from using guns against each other. I wonder why no one has thought of that before?

    3. So you are totes ok if a group of people agree to tell your boss a bunch of lies with the intention of getting you fired? Or is there some sort of distinction to be made between free expression of natural rights and criminal behavior?

      And BTW, your ‘courtesy’ has fuck all to do with me freely exercising my rights. To the extent that your courtesy refrains from interfering with said exercising of my rights then I’ll refrain from stomping the shit out of you.

      Now that’s courtesy.

    4. I doubt even your family would willingly protect you.

    5. I am making 80$ an hour? After been without work for 8 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn’t be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 15k a month? Cause someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else?
      Check it out for yourself ..
      CLICK HERE?? http://xurl.es/reason2321

      1. This spam comment makes more sense than the first comment.

  2. Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i’m a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors

    HERE>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  3. Traditionally, one of the distinctions between misdemeanors and felonies was just exactly that misdemeanors could not result in loss of a civil liberty. Even treating violent misdemeanors as a basis for denying 2nd amendment rights is a constitutional violation; Doing so was approved of by the Court before it had admitting that gun ownership really was a constitutional right, it was based on the denial just being a trivial denial of a privilege, not a right.

    What’s going on here is that they want to transform a whole bunch of misdemeanors into felonies, but continue to use the lesser misdemeanor legal protections, such as the lack of a right to a jury trial.

    And even the rights of those accused of misdemeanors have been diminished by the Supreme court to less than the Bill of Rights directs, by, for instance, stripping people of the right to trial by jury if the prosecutor promises to demand less than a year of jail per count. NOT what the 7th amendment says!

    1. And what’s this all going to wind up doing? Getting a bunch of poor people and black people thrown in prison for victimless crimes of possession, all while having a statistically insignificant effect on gun crime.

      1. The goal isn’t to reduce gun crimes. The goal is to abolish, by any means necessary, a civil liberty they hate.

        1. Surely, to be followed by abolishing other civil liberties they hate; as in your ability to disagree with them. Or associate with persons who do.

          1. They’re already working on those. It’s not a step by step deal.

      2. “Gun crime”? Personally, I think any gun should be arrested when it commits a crime.

  4. This is similar to the “Trump lets mentally ill people have gun!” hysteria a few years ago, even though the ACLU even opposed the ban. It all comes down to the fact that the right to own a gun is constitutionally guaranteed, and as soon as you start putting heavy restrictions and taking away due process for that right, those same restrictions can then be applied to our other constitutional rights.

    1. “…should trouble anyone who cares about due process, since it takes away people’s constitutional rights based on allegations they have had no chance to rebut.”

      That is the problem; those who are running on a narrative couldn’t give a shit about due process. We’ve had several years of Title IX overreach that completely disregarded any notion of due process in the interest of speciously doing good. Either way you must not care about the well being of women if you don’t get with the program.

      1. Yeah, it’s not about solutions to problems anyways. It’s about power.

      2. Haven’t you heard? Due process is a racist tool of the patriarchy.

        1. Oh yeah. Me and my cis/white privilege.

        2. Except when illegal immigrants use it to game the system into letting them stay here longer or indefinetely.

  5. The Minnesota senator, who is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, claimed the NRA’s position “shows where they are when it comes to safety and when it comes to protecting women.”

    It is absolutely dreadful how they advocate and train women to exercise armed self-defense.

    new gun restrictions that sweep too broadly

    There are precisely zero new gun restrictions that can be proposed that are even remotely constitutional. And nearly all current restrictions are unconstitutional.

    1. Actually, every current restriction is unconstitutional – provided one accords a literal reading to both the 2nd and the 9th.

  6. Well they’ll just buy the gun companies then.

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..SKCN1RL18M

    1. Fortunately a lot of gun companies are privately held, and starting new ones is actually kind of easy. And the moment the anti-gunners got control of a manufacturer, they’d just be opening a market opportunity for other manufacturers.

      Actually, as a engineer who’s going to be retiring in a few years, that does sound like an attractive thing to do with my free time… I’ve got some cool ideas for eliminating the need for primers, that might be fun to commercialize.

      If the anti-gunners really wanted to cause trouble, they wouldn’t buy gun companies, they’d buy primer companies. Very few of them, it’s a specialized business.

      1. “…I’ve got some cool ideas for eliminating the need for primers,”

        I’d like to hear about that. Of course I understand you might want to get a patent first.

        1. Yes, yes I might. 😉

        2. Something like a sparkplug?

          I wonder how much it would cost to start up a new firearms company?
          I also wonder how much it could be sold for to a bunch of anti-gunners who want to shut it down?
          Repeat

          Can your primerless firearm be really scary looking? Something to give gun grabbers the vapors?
          That could help drive up the stock price when anti-gunners try to buy it.

          Let’s talk IPO.

          1. Something like a sparkplug?

            Can your primerless firearm be really scary looking?

            The electric firearms of the not-too-distant past used primers. The issue is that you need progressive/differential burn rates and/or to effectively reconfigure gunpowder entirely.

            In this regard the traditional vital distinction between a primer and propellant has been shock resistance (obviously polymers have been invented that circumvent this a bit however), the idea of carrying around mini-shock sensitive grenades is pretty intrinsically scary, IMO.

            Of course, if the goal is simply to troll anti-gun activists, you don’t *actually* have to do any of it.

          2. “I wonder how much it would cost to start up a new firearms company?”

            If you only focuses on primers the barriers shouldn’t be so high as that. Of course marketing them could be a challenge, and then there are companies like CCI who make a lot of money off primers that you would have to contend with.

            If you can get a periodical like Guns and Ammo to write about it that might get some traction. As one who reloads most of their ammo, I’d like to see a weapon with a spark plug; that would eliminate a component and bring down the cost. But the ignition system would have to be proven no less reliable, or I’ll just stick to my old guns.

            1. As one who reloads most of their ammo, I’d like to see a weapon with a spark plug; that would eliminate a component and bring down the cost.

              Not necessarily/exactly. You’d need new brass, probably new powder, and the new brass would need tighter/additional/different tolerances. Think about it for a second; what’s the conductivity of any given piece of brass you’ve reloaded?

              As I point out below, Remington and Voere already tried the electronic ignition idea and it didn’t really take.

              1. True, but as I concluded: But the ignition system would have to be proven no less reliable, or I’ll just stick to my old guns.

                Add at least as cost efficient.

                1. True, but as I concluded: But the ignition system would have to be proven no less reliable, or I’ll just stick to my old guns.

                  And I’m saying that even if it proved nearly, just as, or even more reliable, a hard stop on existing brass and arsenals with little to no reverse compatibility is going to be a big downside.

                  1. I think it would have to be a *lot* more reliable and a *lot* cheaper in order for you to say, “I’m never going to pick up an AR-15 or reload a 5.56 ever again.” and, otherwise, it’s going to have to work with an existing AR-15 and existing hand-reloading setup (potentially with reasonable modification).

            2. I have a co-worker nearing retirement doing this.

              He has his own CNC machine that he’ll rent you time on.

              You bring your own stock (oh, he just so happens to have some he’ll sell you)

              Bring your own G Code (he just so happens to have that to sell you too)

              He’ll set up the CNC machine (for a modest fee)

              His only stipulation: is that you be present and physically press the “start” button on the CNC.

              Few hours later…you’ve got yourself a home made lower.

      2. I’ve got some cool ideas for eliminating the need for primers, that might be fun to commercialize.

        Not to blow your retirement (I wish you luck!), but this is not a new idea and you may have the cart before the horse. Not sure what kind of engineer you are, but the effective difference between the gunpowder and the primer is sensitivity to shock. As Kel-Tec, Kriss, Glock, Remington, Voere, and a few others have shown, it may be better to ‘revolutionize the industry’ in more ‘conventional’ ways than to try and revolutionize it from the ground up. Convert a lower receiver to polymer or make a dual-tube bullpup shotgun and people will beat a path to your door. Entirely re-engineer the ignition system with different casings and different powder formulations, even with existing calibers, and people will forget to buy your gun.

        1. Not going to say what I have in mind, but none of you are even close…

          1. Please don’t tell me it involves using sound as a weapon with “weird” little modules around your hand and neck.

            1. I will gladly refrain from telling you that, I don’t even know what that refers to.

              1. Even in fiction, the weirding module was a bad idea.

      3. Honestly, the idea I think the market is ripe for is an amalgamation of traditional double-actions, removable cylinders/magazines, and free/open bolt loading. A sort of ‘omni-action’ gun or a ‘bottomless’ magazine if you will. Think about say, a Glock, that you can load up with a magazine, (partially) empty the magazine, and continue to cram bullets into and fire. A similar idea/description would be wedding the winchester 1897 shotgun and the Protecta/Striker/Streetsweeper shotguns (not necessarily just for shotgun cartridges of course). I admit to not having the idea fully flushed out and tacitly admit that I may be envisioning and invisible pink unicorn but, to me, it seems more like the kind of idea that would hit the sweet spot between revolutionary and disruptive.

        1. But aren’t you really just saying to use a “revolving stripper clip” for ammunition maintenance?

          I see it looking something halfway between a delinker on an m134, and a steampunk cylinder opening lengthwise, ejecting at left, “feeding” from a magazine at the bottom, and closing on the right to fire TDC

          1. But aren’t you really just saying to use a “revolving stripper clip” for ammunition maintenance?

            I see it looking something halfway between a delinker on an m134, and a steampunk cylinder opening lengthwise, ejecting at left, “feeding” from a magazine at the bottom, and closing on the right to fire TDC

            You’re getting the right idea, but I’m not exactly focused or am trying not to be focused, on the cylinder or drum. At least part of the idea may not involve modifying any given firearm at all. Overarchingly, with the poorer understanding of internal and external ballistics, powder chemistry, interchangeable parts, etc. of the 1850s-1910s and 1890s-1950s it just seems like the diversity and function of arms was so much greater then than now (1950s-2010s) for reasons that are a bit obvious*.

            cont’d…

          2. More concretely, it just seems like a sin (or several) of modern firearms engineering that I have to choose between 3 10-round magazines and 1 30-round magazine or even that any given magazine is of definitively fixed size at all. Or that, in the context of a discussion about how the C-clamp grip helps you drive the rifle, that I have to choose between a semi-auto and a pump action? Why, in the 21st century, do I have to *manually* eject a spent magazine on a modern, off-the-shelf firearm?

            “I you’re going to win a shotgun match, loading it is actually just as important as shooting it.” – Jerry
            Now imagine if Jerry could reload the gun without having to take the gun off the target or even necessarily stop firing. I can think of a myriad of ways that *could* happen and I refuse to believe that something like an electric powered delinker is the only way.

            *Civilians and smaller more diverse armies became, progressively, a more minority share of purchasing/market.

      4. I’d tell you not to quit your day job, but I guess you will be doing that anyway.

        I love my guns as much as the next guy, but the odds of any such venture succeeding are essentially zero. Very few firearms innovations are a commercial success, and next to none of those derive from an individual initiative. These are just the simple economic facts of the industry.

        1. Well, isn’t that what everyone said with they replaced flintlocks with percussion caps? Then again with a cartridge and a primer, all contained in one tidy unit? Then what about when rolling/falling blocks faded away in favour of the bolt action, and later the lever action and pump repeaters? Then along came autoloading, or semiautomatic actions. Or how bout that strange Swiss Straight Pull Bolt action variant on a mauser type action? I’ve got one, and it works REALLY well. Takes some getting used to, though. Fine gun, and round. K 33 I think it is,,,,,

          Some guys can see a system and, in their mind’s eye, see a change that will revolutionise an industry. SOrta like when a breaker point capacitor fed distributor ignition replaced the magneto…

          1. Some guys can see a system and, in their mind’s eye, see a change that will revolutionise an industry. SOrta like when a breaker point capacitor fed distributor ignition replaced the magneto…

            He’s not wrong. Sometimes the same idea has to be ‘invented’ multiple times in order to be a success. Some guys can see a system and, in their mind’s eye, see a change that will revolutionize an industry and die poor waiting for the industry to fully realize it’s revolving.

        2. Oh, I don’t think it would be more than a niche market item, but getting it to work would be fun.

          1. Oh, I don’t think it would be more than a niche market item, but getting it to work would be fun.

            My misunderstanding. Maybe reading too much into context I was conceptualizing some sort of revolution that would displace primers such that firearms technology would be more immune to any of the ravages of gun grabbers.

            A smaller scale ‘professional hobby’ as a POC backstop or just trolling anti-2A types, even if only marginally, sounds like a charmed retirement to me. Again, I wish you luck.

  7. “Getting a bunch of poor people and black people thrown in prison for victimless crimes of possession, ”
    This is what happened to rapper Meek Mills, who has been made a hero in Philadelphia by the same proggie folks who are in favor of gun control legislation such as Klobuchar’s. The hypocrisy is never ending in Philly: Bill Cosby has the shit prosecuted out of him for drugging women to have sex, yet Cardi B is brought in to headline the city’s Made in America celebration just days after admitting to drugging men in order to rob them.

  8. Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared, “Members have a decision to make: will they protect survivors of stalking & domestic abuse? Or are they willing to allow their convicted stalkers & abusers to have access to firearms?”

    “Members have a decision to make: will they protect disingenuous politicians who spew false dichotomies? Or are they willing to censure such people for attempting to subvert the Constitution?”

  9. This blithe dismissal of the NRA’s legitimate complaints about those provisions makes shows that Klobuchar, a former prosecutor, sound like is an authoritarian demagogue who equates concern about civil liberties with indifference to crime.

    FTFY

  10. If the Democrats actually cared about women’s safety, they’d make it as easy as possible for women to protect themselves with guns.

    -jcr

    1. Free gun with purchase of abortion!

      1. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

    2. But with their current tactic of false dichotomy, they can appeal both to women and their anti gun constituency, all the while demonizing anyone who isn’t on board with their program.

      From a sleazy politician point of view, it totally makes sense.

    3. I’ve noticed that feminists tend to react negatively to any suggestion that women be able to defend themselves, even if firearms aren’t involved. Simple suggestions like remaining alert to surroundings or parking in well-lit areas are criticized as “blaming the victim”.

      They seem to prefer that women be as helpless as possible.

      1. I’ve made the same observation, but among those who like to engage in media chatter vs. any woman I actually know.

        The attitude seems to be that, in a perfect world where all males are appropriately woke and sensitive, they wouldn’t have to concern themselves with such things. It is their right to be free from concern about malevolent beings.

        1. Which is just ridiculously naive. Even if the “woke” SJW PC attitude becomes dominant in the culture, there are always outliers. The problem isn’t that men in general have a propensity to assault women. It’s that there are a small number of psychos who don’t care.

      2. It’s something I notice in all of the SJW types. Rather than looking at what is practically possible and trying to work with the world as it exists, they insist that their ideal of how things should be must happen immediately.
        Of course everyone would like the world to be a place where woman don’t need to fear being assaulted ever. But that’s not how it is. Insisting that it should be another way doesn’t keep you from being raped.

        1. Absolutely.

          I think the gun issue is the one issue that most clearly highlights the different world views between the progressive left, and everyone else.

          Many of the other hot button issues are issues of degree (for the vast majority of Americans):
          -When does a fetus begin to deserve protection as a full-fledged human? Sometime before birth, but not right after conception.
          -Same-sex marriage? To the extent there is still debates, even most socons that are against it still don’t want to be involved in other’s bedrooms.
          -Income tax rates?
          -When, and how should the US get involved with other nation’s issues?

          But the difference between the Left’s view of guns and self-defense, and ours (conservative, libertarian, etc.) is one of kind. It is like we really do inhabit two different, parallel universes.

  11. The NRA is wrong. The fact is women are too frequently the target of violence and gun violence in particular. I have no problem taking guns away from men who threaten women. And I would do it sooner not later. Saying that women can get there own gun is not leveling the field. It is giving an excuse to the men who then claim self defense.

    1. “It is giving an excuse to the men who then claim self defense.”

      Provide examples.

    2. In homicides involving firearms, women are seriously underrepresented, as they are in homicides generally. (7.62 per 100,000 for males. vs 1.4 per 100,000 for females. Is 1.4 per 100,000 too frequent? Surely. But shouldn’t more be done to protect MEN, who are more than five times more likely to be killed by someone with a firearm? Or is this just pandering to the “gentler sex?”

      1. That’s the plan. If men kill each other off, there won’t be any to threaten women, so women won’t need guns. Of course their may be a downside, but they generally don’t think that far ahead.

        1. I think I am going to start a campaign to convince men not to donate sperm in anyway (other than the old fashioned, direct method!). As long as men are stupid enough to store their sperm, then the 4th wave feminists don’t have anything to worry about by getting rid of men.

    3. God made man, Sam Colt made man* equal.

      *This is old English. It means humans.

      The 100 year old grandma with a .38 can take out a multi murderer who looks like Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Sam Colt made them equal.

      1. A lot of people don’t seem to understand that at all. Before reliable, easy to use guns were available, one had to be very skilled or strong to effectively fight or defend oneself. It was an incredible equalizer for all ordinary people who aren’t trained fighters.

    4. I have no problem taking guns away from men who threaten women.

      To borrow a bit from Jim Gaffigan, what about women who threaten children?

    5. “there” [sic] own gun?

      So what’s the deal, didn’t you go to school and learn basic grammar? If someone doesn’t know the difference between there and their, how can I possibly take them seriously?

      [Progs pull this sort of crap all the time; just thought I’d try it myself.]

    6. “Taking guns away from men who threaten women” is a separate issue from levels of proof and procedural protections, which is what this is really about.

    7. I have no problem taking guns

      Leftists are notably against due process and personal responsibility.

      1. And of course what he really means is “having someone else take the guns.” He’s not gonna take anything.

    8. Almost any man can over power almost any woman.

      A gun is not necessary to engage in violence against women.

      Indeed the majority of rapes occur with no weapon being used.

      A gun however is the absolute best protection a woman can have as it makes it possible to resist such violence.

      You should be shunned by society to the point where you have to live off scraps in the street like a stray dog.

    9. You have shown a remarkable ability to cram 10 lbs of bullshit into a 5 pound bag. You make several, rather grandiose claims with no evidence whatsoever. The idea that women are particular targets of gun violence is laughable on its face. The majority of gun deaths are suicides (women rarely commit suicide this way) or homicides between men already committing criminal acts.
      The average male doesn’t need a gun to threaten the average woman.

    10. “I have no problem taking guns away from men who threaten women.”

      Does it have to be a real or plausible threat? Though given the lack of due process that’s a moot point.

      “Saying that women can get there [sic] own gun is not leveling the field.”

      Yah. Women don’t need guns because they’re physically capable of defending themselves against unarmed men.

  12. I like how the implication is that women have such little agency that men must protect them from men. Now that’s equality!

  13. Just another step towards the goal of abolishing the 2A and on the way eliminate civil rights right and left and elevate misdemeanor punishment. Civil forfeiture of your gun with no criminal defense available. Not unique in the history of tyrants.

  14. The proggies always brag about how they are always protecting women’s rights…but not when it comes to self defense.

  15. Anything to take us a step closer to enabling the confiscation of all firearms.

    1. Will you be the one knocking on doors demanding a law abiding citizen give up his guns?

      If not, shut the fuck up.

      1. Of course he will not; that little albeit hazardous task will be done by “trained professionals” duly imbued with the authority to government to perform that dirty work. Posters like Darren are only here to signal their virtue.

        1. Isn’t DarrenM just pointing out the motive behind the legislation, not necessarily agreeing with it?

  16. This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 8000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
    Check For info Here,
    CLICK HERE???????? http://www.Aprocoin.com

  17. It may be fun to take a shot at Trump on gun control, but if the act reaches his desk in its present form, I’ll bet he vetos it.

    1. I wouldn’t take that bet on “get the guns first due process later” Trump.

      The only thing Trump as done for gun rights is appoint some judges who may or may not help us in the future (the Soc Sec thing was really a tempest in a teapot).

      No, Trump has been real good at getting the support of gun-owners, but he hasn’t delivered any significant benefit to us.

  18. ‘In Pennsylvania, for example, someone can be guilty of misdemeanor stalking if he “repeatedly commits acts toward another person,” including communications, that “cause substantial emotional distress.”‘

    My mental illness is your crime.

  19. I’ve always been curious as to how the law applies to people who must be able to carry a firearm as a condition of employment. I mean the reported rates of domestic abuse with the military and law enforcement are much higher than average. Even as some jurisdictions support confiscating firearms from the household, you could end up with situations where someone is out of a job with no criminal conviction.

  20. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started ========>>>>>>>> http://Www.TheproCoin.CoM

  21. Just in case anybody hasn’t figured it out yet…’safety’ is the new orwellian

  22. Yeah, I admit to not having the idea fully flushed out and tacitly admit that I may be envisioning and invisible pink unicorn but…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.