The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Violence Against Women Act Does Violence to the Constitution
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A common trick of big-government loving politicians is to give legislation names so appealing that it seems no reasonable person could oppose it. The truth is, the more unobjectionable the title, the more objectionable the content. Two well-known examples are the “PATRIOT Act” and the “Access to Affordable and Quality Care Act.”

Another great example is the Violence Against Women Act. Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.

Like most federal laws, the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. All other crimes — including domestic violence — are strictly state and local matters.

The law also forbids anyone subject to a restraining order obtained by a spouse or a domestic partner from owning a gun. This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on federal laws denying anyone the right to own a gun. Whether someone subject to a restraining order, or convicted of a violent crime, should lose their rights to own firearms is a question to be decided by state and local officials.

At least the current law requires individuals receive due process before the government can deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation reauthorizing and making changes to the Violence Against Women Act. The most disturbing part of this “upgrade” gives government the power to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based solely on an allegation that the individual committed an act of domestic violence. The accused then loses Second Amendment rights without even having an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.

This is a version of “red flag” laws that are becoming increasingly popular. Red flag laws are not just supported by authoritarians like Senators Diane Feinstein and Lindsey Graham, but by alleged “constitutional conservatives” like Sen. Ted Cruz.

Red flag laws have led to dangerous confrontations between law enforcement and citizens who assumed that those breaking into their property to take their guns are private, rather than government, thieves.

The House bill also expands red flag laws to cover those accused of “misdemeanor stalking.” Many jurisdictions define misdemeanor stalking to include “cyber” or online stalking. These means someone could lose Second Amendment rights for sending someone an “offensive” Facebook or Twitter message.

Forbidding someone from owning a firearm because of offensive social media posts sets a precedent that could be used to impose legal sanctions on those posting “hate speech.” Since hate speech is defined as “speech I don’t agree with,” this could lead to the de facto outlawing of free speech online.

Instead of addressing concerns over the inclusion of new red flag type laws in the Violence Against Women’s Act, proponents of the bill have smeared their critics as not caring about domestic violence. As Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum has pointed out, these progressives sound like neoconservatives who smear PATRIOT Act opponents as allies of Al Qaeda.

All decent people oppose domestic violence and terrorism. However, the desire to catch and punish wrongdoers does not justify violating the Constitution or denying anyone due process. When government violates the rights of anyone it threatens the liberties of everyone.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Rational says:

    AMERICA IS A CRIMINAL STATE—AND VAWA PROVES IT.

    Thanks, Sir. You are so right. But things are even worse.

    VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) proves that USA is a criminal state. It really stands for:

    VAWA = Vicious Animal Whore’s Act.

    VAWA is the draconian, brazenly unconstitutional, anti-male, anti family law on the books. Yet, men have been unable to make a dent in this barbaric law or get it repealed.

    Under VAWA, a petitioner (hereinafter referred to as a “VAWA whore” can simply filling out a preprinted form falsely get a restraining order against any man, even her husband, ex parte, without his knowledge, behind his back.

    All the VAWA whore has to start the scam rolling is to simply fill out a form (a TRO petition) and fill out her name and address, and that of her target, and check one or more boxes like this:

    “I have been threatened”
    “I have been assaulted”
    “I have been stalked.”

    There is no box like “I am angry” or “I am having a bad day,” or “my husband will not buy me that big TV”.

    In other words, the only allowed boxes are in support of VAWA petition.

    No evidence is necessary at all. No medical records needed. No photos/videos needed.

    In other words, the govt. incites and forces women to frame men, even their husbands—in order to destroy the family.

    In fact, research has shown that over 90% of these TRO petitions are fake. They are filed for ulterior reasons, such as anger, to cover up an affair, to steal or extort money, to cover up drug abuse and child abuse by the woman, to steal man’s property instantaneously, etc.

    Yes, almost all are approved, if they are filed by a woman. They should fire all the Judges and put vending machines instead, that will print out a restraining order against anybody a whore wants.

    Many VAWA whores then demand the man double the legal amount of child support or pay a large alimony to dismiss the bogus TRO.

    Using this scam, a VAWA whore can kick her husband out of HIS house, and take over it, steal his property, etc. and keep him away while she drinks, does drugs, brings in another man and gets screwed in the very house and bed that belongs to her husband, and even turn to full blown prostitution, and abuses her children secretly….

    All with the full support of the crooked whore-mongering legal system, under VAWA induced state laws.

    Research has show VAWA whores start realizing that the legal system is a joke and lying pays. As a result, VAWA whores are more likely to turn to drugs, prostitution and all sorts of crime. Since VAWA, crime, even violent crime, among women has mushroomed out of control.

    We need to set up a database of VAWA whores.

    Men need to set up websites and organize to repeatedly take VAWA up to Supreme Court and get this barbaric law repealed.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    , @Anon
    , @Anon
  2. Zedrick says:

    Where you been Ron? This was news to MRA’s/realists 20+ yrs ago.
    Pretty sure those same folks made a whole lot of predictions back then, that have since come true.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  3. @Zedrick

    Don’t take this wrong, Zedrick, but Dr. Paul has been AROUND the whole time. “Dr. No” was fighting against all violations of the US Constitution since before some readers here were born. The “Dr. No” appellation was given to this guy, because he voted against most everything. GOOD! Ever hear the pundits say “oh, this guy was in office for 20 years, and what legislation has he accomplished?” To me, that’s a mark of excellence there.

    I did get off the subject, so let me reply with this: Where have MRA’s been over the last years when Socialism and the US Police State were slowly implemented? That’s a real question, not rhetorical. I don’t know how real-conservative the MRAs have been, besides on their one VERY GOOD issue.

    • Replies: @Zedrick
  4. @Rational

    I couldn’t use the [AGREE] just now, but great comment, Rational. I’m surprised more family court judges have not gone to an early grave … just sayin’. Things are going to get much worse economically, and I’m not sure how long men with nothing left to lose are going to stand down.

  5. It’s privilege’s nature to seek growth, and to rationalise its search as want of fairness (reversing reality and fancying that it currently lies in a state of disadvantage).

    The growth-seeking and the growth are stopped by nothing but pressure from without, certainly not by any self-awareness and/or want for actual fairness.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  6. Anon[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rational

    I know it’s a reality hard to cope with — but all of that is coming to pass (and is, in my opinion, going to “grow”) solely because men are too busy one-upping each other and trying to lord it over as many other man as they can, while they have no qualms about prostrating to women.

  7. Anon[429] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rational

    The purpose is to wipe out the family.
    There no longer being families and long-term co-operative relations between a man and a woman clearly is seen as instrumental to handier governance of peoples.
    So the whole system works in that direction.

  8. Dr. Ron Paul nails it once again. As the victim of a bogus restraining order, I was shocked just how easy it was for my ex-wife to get one. We lived in the state of Indiana, and she fled to NC. Once there, she filed for an order and NC sent it back to Indiana. In December of that year, Indiana threw out the order and I was to get my kids for winter break. Well, two weeks later, she files for another protective order and it’s not heard until March of the following year. In the hearing, the judge in NC spoke to the judge in Indiana and sent it back to Indiana. In the hearing, my ex-wife took the stand and told her side of the story. My attorney never had the chance to cross examine her, I never had the opportunity to take the stand myself. But after everything was sent back to Indiana, she was still awarded a protective order by NC. Yet I was never served with the order. To this day, I have no idea if this is on my record or not. But the ease that my ex was able to get an order and the rush to judgment by the state of NC blew me away. In our custody evaluation in Indiana, the psychologist noted that NC had already come to an a priori assumption of my guilt and that no evidence to the contrary would dissuade them. Thankfully I received custody of my children and mom hasn’t seen them in 5 years. VAWA has been weaponized to unilaterally give women the power in any relationship, and has rewarded women with cash and prizes for blowing up their families.

  9. @Tired of the madness

    Wow, to hear at the end of your story that you recieved sole custody was a real twist. I’m happy that it worked out for you.

    • Replies: @Tired of the Madness
  10. Ron Paul: “All decent people oppose domestic violence and terrorism. ”

    I guess that means that the Founding Fathers weren’t decent people then, since they used terrorism, i.e., violent acts intended to achieve a political result.

    The problem here is “decent people” and their fucked up sense of decency. The very Christian American compulsion to be “decent” has led to the overriding of principles expressed in the Constitution again and again. It was abolitionists’ sense of “decency” which led to war, and inclusion of negroes into the republic as citizens and voters. Later, the same attitude led their progeny to pass Affirmative Action laws, granting preferences to the children of alien races over their own white children. They were quite willing to sacrifice “their posterity” on the altar of their so-called decency.

    Now Ron Paul says they’re coming for your guns, using the VAWA as a pretext. But how else? Back in frontier times, a man needed a shootin’ iron for rustlin’ up some grub or to defend his animals from coyotes, and if he beat his wife now and then, it was considered his own business. Nowadays though, very few people need to depend on firearms for day-to-day survival, and so all decent people are in favor of restricting them. Only deplorables object. Likewise with VAWA. This is the ever-onward march of “decency”, trampling freedom and the Constitution, or what remains of it, under foot. Besides, who cares about it? Certainly not “decent” people, since the Constitution was written largely by those notorious slave-owning white men from whom everyone with any sense of “decency” now wants to distance themselves. Freedom itself is suspect. Should men be free to beat their wives? Surely nobody “decent” would agree.

    If there really were a God, we should pray to him to save us from the “decent” people even more than from the criminals, or the worst diseases. A suitable epitaph to put on the nation’s tombstone: “Dead, but decent”.

  11. 95Theses says:
    @Tired of the madness

    Whew! What a nightmare! Good for you that things turned out alright. And for your kids.

  12. @Futurethirdworlder

    @futurethirdworlder & @95 Theses, thank you both for your kind words. I only received custody because it was in Indiana and the psychologist saw through her lies.

  13. Zedrick says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Yeah, I know who Ron is.

    Well, the MRA’s have been in that recently exploding persona non grata group for a really loooong time. They were pretty much the first one’s put in there. As for the issues you raise – socialism, police state – many were screaming against those too, way ahead of the curve. Maybe not ideologically, but definitely in regard to the Govt policies those things brought about – family destruction & over ruling due process. Granted, this was an accident because family men were the first adult casualties.

    I dabbled with MR’s way back, but moved on as I saw the futility of being in a movement that EVERYONE hated – left, right, conservative, liberal, non political, male, female – everyone hated, ridiculed, shut down & lied about MRA’s from way back in the early 90’s. And yes they have done little to change anything, but I would argue the above in their defense. I would also point out they were bellwethers on a lot of the dissident rights current points.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS