Don't Take Away My Gun, Judge--I Only Hit My Wife

Out of Wyoming yesterday came some disturbing news that highlights our society's flippant attitude toward violence once again. And though I'm somewhat hesitant to post twice in a row on an issue not directly related to animal rights, I can certainly make the connections. First is the fact that, certainly, the reason many Wyoming men desperately want to hold onto their guns is to kill animals with them. Second is the truth that all violence, all oppression, is related; whether directed toward animals, women, or those of a race, culture, or religion different from the oppressor's, it is all based in the same foundation and intertwined. So let's get on with it.

From Cheyenne, Wyoming:

A bill that would require Wyoming judges to warn defendants that they would lose their federal gun rights by pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges received preliminary approval in the state Senate on Monday.

The Senate unanimously approved Senate File 70, sponsored by Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander. The bill would also classify misdemeanor domestic violence as a serious offense requiring defendants to have lawyers.

Speaking in favor of the bill at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Monday, Case said, "We still have a situation in the United States of America where you can lose a constitutional right, the Second Amendment, for a misdemeanor crime."

Congress in 1996 expanded the law that bans convicted felons from owning guns to apply to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

The article continues in all its you've-got-to-be-kidding-me glory, but I'll let you read it for yourself. The so-called problem is that we "have a situation" in which men can lose their guns just for beating up their wives or girlfriends (and yes, I know that women can be perpetrators of domestic violence too, but let's be realistic about whom this issue mostly applies to). And what exactly is wrong with this supposedly problematic situation? Does Case really think that victims' and potential victims' right to be safe is less important than clearly violent individuals' right to carry deadly weapons?

Even "Suzan Pauling, public policy director of the Wyoming Coalition against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Laramie, said her group supports the bill. She said defendants should realize that they face the loss of their gun rights if they're convicted," though she "emphasized that Congress had a reason for taking gun rights away from people convicted of domestic violence."

Yes, and very good reasons at that. People who have been violent before are far more likely to be violent again, and they are the last people who need to be carrying around lethal weapons.

I suppose it's not the law itself that bothers me (I can understand why Pauling doesn't oppose it, as a matter of believing all people should at least be aware of their rights, legal consequences, etc.), but rather the reasoning and justification that has the people who support it worked up. They clearly see flaws not only in the failure of judges to directly advise defendants that their gun rights will be taken away but also in the fact that those gun rights are taken away in response to domestic violence convictions and guilty pleas. (Really, go read Case's statement again; the problem according to him isn't that people don't know their guns will be taken away as a result of a domestic violence record, but rather that their gun rights are taken away for such crimes.)

The whole effort is far more concerned with keeping perpetrators of domestic violence from being convicted than with anything else. Even the effort to "classify misdemeanor domestic violence as a serious offense" isn't being undertaken with victims in mind--there's no goal of deterrence or of increased penalties; rather, those pushing this law through want domestic violence to be considered a serious offense only because those accused of it will then be required to have a lawyer. And although I support the right of every defendant of every crime to be represented by a competent, talented lawyer, it's enormously disconcerting that in a discussion related to domestic violence, everything being discussed here is part of an effort to keep perpetrators of domestic violence from pleading guilty to or being convicted of their crimes--because we don't want them to lose the right to carry and use deadly weapons. After all, how will they get out their aggression by killing innocent animals for fun or threatening (or worse) those close to them if they don't have their guns? The logic of this campaign is baffling.

Maybe if Wyoming were simultaneously ramping up efforts to reduce the domestic violence that lands these gun lovers in court in the first place or increasing funding and resources for domestic violence shelters, I'd be less offended. Until that happens, I'm appalled.

Photo credit: Getty Images.