Should US citizens accused of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms?

Yes

1 of 27

by Paola Fanutti

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The right to bear and retain arms is guaranteed to all Americans in the Bill of Rights' second amendment, however, the application of this constitutionally designated right in favour of accused abusers represents a grave misunderstanding of the amendment's purpose. All of the Bill's Rights, second amendment included, are written with the expressed purpose of protecting citizens from any arbitrary deprivation of liberty by the state. In fact, the Constitution itself states that the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the ruling government, thus the Rights were clearly NOT devised to be used as the basis to abuse and cause harm to fellow citizens.

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." (Bill of Rights, Preamble)

The constitutionally protected liberty to bear arms cannot be manipulated by abusers to terrorize and batter their partners, and the Bill itself nullifies rights where they are used to harm the liberties of other people. Article IX of the Bill states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

We must remember that, for many reasons, domestic violence is a crime that is under-reported and under-prosecuted, and society must be sensitive of this fact. Allowing accused abusers to retain their arms denies and disparages a victim's sacrosanct right to personal safety and security. Everyone is entitled to security of the home and person.

Homeland security, the freedom to live in a country free from constant terror, real or implicit, is a hot topic in American politics. Does the victim, who, in domestic violence cases is predominately a woman, not deserve the freedom to live in her own home and relationship free from terror and the threat of violence, real or implicit?

Would you be comfortable if a suspected (but unconvicted) terrorist boarded an aircraft with a set of plastic knives?

Would you knowingly permit an accused (but unconvicted) arsonist to have a lighter in the lobby in Empire State Building?

In the interests of public security, probably not, on both counts. Those accused of these atrocious crimes and publicly wielding these devices constitute a genuine threat to public harm. The accused wielding these objects theoretically have the right to bear them, however, as these objects may be used to deny and disparage the right to safety that is retained by the people, the accused's right to have these objects must be forfeited, even if he or she has not been convicted of the crime.

How is obstructing an accused abuser's right to continue to bear arms any different?

It may appear different in society's consciousness, because, although domestic violence is a public crime, it occurs in the context of the home, away from the public eye. Letting accused abusers retain their weapons posits domestic violence as a private affair, and continues to perpetuate the idea that abuse is a woman's private problem, thus minimizing the state's ability to interfere and prevent domestic violence cases and protect abused women.

Domestic violence is NOT a private affair. It is a PUBLIC crime, a grave offence against the safety of the individual and the security of society. Since many abusers are not prosecuted and continue to batter their partners irrespective of the law, letting accused abusers keep their arms potentially has the following consequences:

* It puts women in danger. Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, and 50% of all women murdered are killed by their partner. Most of these women experienced significant domestic abuse before their death. (http://www.now.org/ issues/violence/stat s.html) Accused abusers wielding weapons is lethal, as a beating could rapidly turn to murder, if the abuser is allowed to keep his gun in the house.

* It makes it even more difficult for a woman to leave an abusive relationship, putting her at the mercy of the person who hurts her. Taking away the accused abuser's right to bear arms makes it a bit easier for a woman to leave her desperate situation.

* If the accused abuser is allowed to keep his weapon, a woman loses faith and confidence in the judiciary and law to protect her. Perhaps saddest of all, an abused woman begins to see the rights of the abuser take precedence over her own safety, and thus loses faith in legal institutions and is less willing to press charges and convict the person who harms her. The problem of domestic violence in American society can therefore never be eradicated.

Sure everyone has the constitutional right to bear arms and honest citizens should keep this right, but where this liberty is potentially being manipulated and used to cause grave public and private harm, then this right must be tempered with the social responsibility of security and safety, and the Bill of Rights itself acknowledges this fact.

Learn more about this author, Paola Fanutti.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.