Our Mobile App
and get our latest news and featured videos instantly
THE FEDERALIST.COM April 23, 2019 - When politicians pass laws to please their bases, we often forget the costs inherent in these acts. “In every age it has been the tyrant who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both,” Eugene V. Debs, prominent labor activist, remarked in a 1918 speech. Debs invoked the profound irony through which humans often lose their liberties to thunderous applause. We’re currently facing another potential loss of due process rights for poor Americans if politicians get their way.
Both the government-insulating 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, and, more recently, the supposedly anti-terrorism 2001 PATRIOT Act stripped Americans of fundamental rights under the guise of a sympathetic cause. Now it’s happening again, as the modified version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is on its way to a Senate vote.
History of the Act - Originally passed in 1994, the VAWA funded the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, and included several other measures aimed at curbing domestic violence. The act contains a sunset provision and was reauthorized in 2000, 2005, and 2013, never expiring until the government shutdown of 2018-19. The act hadn’t changed much since 1994, except for adding protections for same-sex couples and victims who were unlawful immigrants. Now, though, it’s a different story.
Not everyone is happy with this latest version. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposes the reauthorization and has recently taken a considerable amount of heat for doing so. Critics are painting them as heartless for their opposition to a law that ostensibly protects victims. Of course, the NRA being on the receiving end of progressive rage is nothing new, but this time the pro-gun organization is quite right. The new bill contains sweeping changes that would eliminate the fundamental rights of many Americans, disregarding due process.
Three changes stand out as particularly alarming: The elimination of a hearing requirement before civil rights are suspended as a result of a restraining order, the new definition of “intimate partner,” and an expansion into misdemeanor crimes of “stalking.”
Many states will grant a restraining order with little evidence. There are sometimes good reasons for this. Sometimes it might be clear enough that someone is in danger for the state to intervene before anyone is hurt, but revoking someone’s civil rights is a serious—and dangerous—solution, one not to be used lightly. [full article]
One spectator sport dims while another rises
This week fans of professional football will gather in Nashville to draft athletes for what each of the 32 teams of the National Football League hope will eventually lead them to winning the Super Bowl. For most of the other 31 teams, hope springs eternal, especially in times like these when the pro game is replete with empty stadium seats.
But sneaking around on the fields of a different battle is the rising tide of what is fast becoming another spectator sport. Shooting.
It is too early to tell if big boy shooting leagues will begin drawing tens of thousands of lookie loos and, in addition, unlike the NFL, girl shooters can play in what dreamer entrepreneurs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation might someday call the ultimate savior of America’s gun economy: females.
What motivates this thought appears to be either a must-do strategy on the part of gun makers who worry about losing ground to the diminishing world of hunting or just keeping up with the Joneses of the gun world in a sign of desperation from that group to keep their manufacturing competitors from stealing all the 3-gun-and-more shooting thunder.
What’s curious is the thought quagmire that searches for incentive, that process of wondering exactly why gun companies appear to be in a race to sign publicity seeking “personalities” from within the shooting game. [Read More]
Comment on any of the articles in GunProPlus on our Facebook page.