With Virginia Democrats in complete control of the state legislature and the governor’s office, the prospects of any legislation beneficial to gun owners becoming law this session are infinitesimally small, so I debated about even covering a new bill offered by Republican Del. Karen Hamilton. I could see similar legislation being introduced in states where it actually stands a chance of passage, though, so I think it’s important to address a major flaw in what is a well-intended bill.
HB 540 would create a carveout in the list of “sensitive places” in Virginia, but only for “any woman who (1) is a current victim of family abuse, as that term is defined in § 16.1-228, and (2) has an active protective order against a family or household member.” Under Hamilton’s bill, a woman who’s taken out an active protective order and who possesses a valid carry permit would be able to bear arms in a variety of locations that are currently off-limits to lawful concealed carry; including government buildings, public parks, and airport terminals.
By limiting relief solely to women who’ve obtained a protective order, Hamilton’s bill runs afoul of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Men can be the victims of domestic abuse as well, yet even if they too are able to obtain a protective order they would be left disarmed in these “sensitive places” under Hamilton’s bill.
At the very least Hamilton’s legislation should be amended to be gender-neutral and applicable to anyone with an active order of protection against a family or household member. I’d prefer it to be even broader, though, and simply get rid of these “gun-free zones” altogether. Would it pass the Democrat-controlled House of Delegates? Absolutely not, but the same is true of HB 540 as its currently written.
If lawmakers are going to draft virtue-signaling bills they should actually be virtuous in nature. I don’t like the idea of special carveouts for some individuals when we’re talking about a fundamental right of we the people, whether it’s judges or women who are fleeing their abuser. Yes, those with an active order of protection arguably face a greater risk of harm than someone who isn’t trying to flee an abuser, but that doesn’t mean that they possess more rights than the average Virginian.
The one exception that I’d be willing to make is a measure that would allow individuals with an active protection order to lawfully carry a concealed firearm once they’ve submitted their concealed carry application but have not yet been approved. I’d even support expediting the processing of those permits ahead of others who aren’t dealing with an abusive spouse, partner, or household member. When it comes to where those folks can carry, though, there should be one rule and standard that applies to everyone who can lawfully bear arms.
Again, this is largely a moot point. Given the new Democrat supermajority in the Virginia House of Delegates, Hamilton’s bill isn’t going to make it out of committee, much less get to Abigail Spanberger’s desk. But if Hamilton’s legislation inspires any lawmakers in red states to follow suit, they should take care not to repeat the error in HB 540’s language and ensure that its protections apply equally to women and men alike.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
