news

Among the most baffling failures in gun policy—and there are many—is the fact that some victims of domestic violence don’t get the same protections from their abusers as others. Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are only banned from owning guns if they are married to, have children with, or live with their victims. (That’s if they’re subjected to a background check, which is a big “if.”)

There are only 10 states that have laws closing the so-called boyfriend loophole. Everywhere else in the country, a man who assaults his girlfriend and is convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can buy and own as many guns as he’d like.

A gun is no less deadly in abusive dating relationships than it is in abusive married relationships, but in a majority of states the law pretends otherwise. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2008 48.6% of intimate partner homicides were committed by a dating partner. Of those victims, 70% were women.

This glaring gap in policy was raised last week by Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, who rolled out a gun policy platform that included closing the “boyfriend loophole” as well as other things like universal background checks and restrictions on concealed carry.

From the O’Malley fact sheet:

O’Malley supports the proposed federal legislation that would close this loophole, providing critical protections for women who are targets of dating violence. O’Malley also supports provisions that prohibit anyone convicted of stalking from owning a gun.

The legislation O’Malley is talking about has bipartisan support in Congress, but, like so many other gun reform measures, the bills haven’t advanced an inch since being introduced.

“My ex-boyfriend—despite being subject to a domestic abuse restraining order—got his hands on a gun and pulled the trigger.”

The House version of the bill—the Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act—was introduced in July by Michigan Democrat Debbie Dingell and Illinois Republican Robert Dold. It still hasn’t received a hearing or a vote.

In a statement to Fusion, Dingell emphasized the bipartisan nature of the bill: “We disagree on a lot of things in Washington, but we all agree that no woman and no child should ever live in fear because of domestic violence. The bipartisan Zero Tolerance for Domestic Abusers Act makes commonsense updates to our laws to protect victims of domestic abuse and stalking from gun violence and, ultimately, save lives.”

In the Senate, Democrats introduced the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2013, but the bill never left committee. (The bill has been reintroduced as the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act of 2015.)

Both versions of the legislation would do the same thing: expand the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to protect people in dating relationships by adding the words “dating partners” to the existing provision on domestic violence. This small change—just adding two words—would ban convicted abusers in dating relationships from owning guns, same as their married counterparts. The fix is that simple, which is part of why it’s so absurd that it hasn’t happened yet.

Click here to read the full story.