This goes into more detail on the current push to close the alleged “boyfriend loophole that I addressed in my latest TZP column.
Let me tell you, closing that “loophole” defining “boyfriend” — isn’t all that complicated. The complicated part is just how many people they can potentially retroactively turn into prohibited persons without Americans deciding it’s time for proactive politician potshots.
Right to own a gun could hinge on definition of ‘boyfriend’ in ‘red flag’ laws
Senator John Thune of South Dakota said the question behind the definition was surprisingly complex.
“The surface explanation seems like it would be fairly simple, but I know that as they try to reduce it to legislative text, I think it’s gotten a little bit more uncomfortable,” said Thune. The Senator is not directly involved in these negotiations.
We know what they really want to do, because they — repeatedly — tried exactly this already in the Violence Against Women Act: include “dating partner” in the list of qualifying relationships for domestic violence…
…where “dating partner” is anyone who ever dated a person even just once once before realizing the person is batshit crazy and never had a thing to do with them again; even if that was 30 or 40 years ago.
One night stand with a barfly back in your Navy days? That’s a dating partner, and these scumsucking senators want them to be able to red flag you.
The more extreme rights-violators want to go whole hog now. The slightly more clued-in congresscritters want to change the definition gradually in hopes we won’t notice the boiling water.
But they all want to cook us.
(More Tip Jar Options)