What is the boyfriend loophole?

[Nathan]

from NPRhttps://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/11069...domestic-abuse

I read it, but it still don’t get it. Does this mean if someone abuses their spouse, they can lose their gun rights with a misdemeanor DV conviction, but not if they are a boyfriend?

[Tom Servo]

Does this mean if someone abuses their spouse, they can lose their gun rights with a misdemeanor DV conviction

That's already the case under the 1997 Lautenberg Amendment. And that's already a problem because the definitions for misdemeanor domestic violence vary from state to state.

But our legislators have decided to make things even murkier. Dating relationships are hard to define in the law. The new law attempts to define them as such:

“(37) (A) The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.

“(B) Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship under subparagraph (A) shall be determined based on consideration of—

“(i) the length of the relationship;

“(ii) the nature of the relationship; and

“(iii) the frequency and type of interaction between the individuals involved in the relationship.

It's really vague and poorly thought out.

For what it's worth, I know of no mass shootings where this situation applied. They just wanted to cram whatever restrictions they could into this bill.

[44 AMP]

The "boyfriend loophole" is a made up term for political consumption, covering something the existing laws do not, and some people think should.

Right or wrong existing law covers a domestic violence CONVICTION making someone a prohibited person (essentially for life) unable to possess firearms.

The "loophole" is that existing laws have limits (and MUST have defined limits in order to be fairly applied) and those defined limits about who is, and is not a "domestic partner" were not broad enough to make some people happy.

It's NOT a loophole, but they call it one for the emotional reaction the word carries. What they call a loophole, other people call following the law.

We now have a new Federal law that expands the scope of who will be considered a "domestic partner" under the law, and typically the new standards and limits are extremely vague. I suppose one shouldn't expect better from a law that was crafted, "debated" and signed into law in a MONTH.....

we've already seen a case where the previous law was stretched to the unbelievable in order to try and punish someone. A woman who's son was shot by a cop actually filed suit to have his right to arms taken away (so he couldn't be a cop anymore) under the DV laws, claiming that they "had a child in common", in order to qualify under the DV law limits about who has and doesn't have standing.
The case was eventually shot down because the only thing they had as a "child in common" was that the guy shot was her child and the cop shot him.
The woman did eventually face perjury charges, no idea how that went because after that, it was out of the news.

Point here is, with people trying to stretch existing law to that extreme, what might we get with the new law, and its much broader and ill defined scope?

Not much good, that I can see...and an absolutely horrendous potential for abuse...

[Aguila Blanca]

I have some hope that the extended definition will eventually be struck down as unconstitutionally vague. Until that happens (if it happens), we 're stuck with a law that's ripe for abuse.

[44 AMP]

Temper your hope with a huge dose of patience. The law was only signed last week. It will take time before there is even a test case, MORE time before a suitable case (showing harm, with standing to be heard AND with people willing to carry it through to the ultimate end) can be brought, and then even more time (possibly decades) before it reaches the High Court, and THEN, the sitting court has to agree to hear it.

That's one of the biggest imponderables, WHO will be on the Supreme Court, and what will their ideas about the law and the Constitution be, when/if your case finally gets there.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Temper your hope with a huge dose of patience. The law was only signed last week. It will take time before there is even a test case, MORE time before a suitable case (showing harm, with standing to be heard AND with people willing to carry it through to the ultimate end) can be brought, and then even more time (possibly decades) before it reaches the High Court, and THEN, the sitting court has to agree to hear it.

That's one of the biggest imponderables, WHO will be on the Supreme Court, and what will their ideas about the law and the Constitution be, when/if your case finally gets there.

The problem is that laws can be signed into law in an instant but can take years or decades to overturn. Meanwhile, the law applies and people are punished accordingly. Is that justice?

[stinkeypete]

It’s a recognition that domestic partners are very often not married.

In my case, my daughter’s ex boyfriend is in prison for trying to strangle her.

This same idiot lost his handgun someplace because he was drunk. Thank God.

She’s making much better choices now. But Marriage doesn’t make a home or family.