NRA Opposes VAWA

Hopefully the needle has moved and they show some backbone. Libs are angry :rage: so Im happy for now.


So, I am not familiar with this act other than what I just read on Wikipedia. Besides my usual thoughts of why does the Federal government need to create legislature for domestic abuse victims, I am not sure what the NRA has to do with it. I didnt read anything about firearms. What am I missing? Does this act take firearms from people?


The article seems to be saying that the democrats have added gun control measures, in the form of blocking domestic violence offenders from having access to guns, to a bill to renew the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.

Where this really doesn’t make any sense, is the fact that the Lautenburg Amendment, which was passed a few years after the VAMA, blocks (convicted) domestic violence offenders from having access to guns and the Lautenburg Amendment has no expiration date.

I can only think of two explanations for what is going on:

  1. Democrats stirring up pure BS for political reasons, like they have done by claiming Trump made it legal for mentally ill people to buy guns (when Obama’s rule about adding Social Security records to the NICS database was repealed).

  2. Democrats are trying to go a step further than the Lautenburg Amendment, by getting a federal law stating that an accusation of domestic violence is all that is needed to add someone to the NICS database, and pushing it through by pretending it’s something like the Lautenburg Amendment (and pretending that the Lautenburg Amendment doesn’t exist).


It would then appear that #1 is the operative dalliance of the Democrats to back door that only allegations…allegations of domestic violence, not conviction of Domestic Violence which is adequately taken care of in the Lautenburg Amendment to the 1994 VAWA.

Kudos for very good explanation @JPN


It is HR 1585

The ACT itself was a good deal and provided funding to many programs for victims.
But the Pelosites want to add Red Flag legislation it.
Such as preventing someone who was accused with misdemeanor crimes.
Those are such things as accusations of being accosted without proof or conviction.
A woman could run into you and claim you felt her up for a really bad example to use.
Even though you didn’t and she ran into you.
No conviction mind you just accusation.
The NRA is correct in this action.
Leave the bill as is and let it pass.
Dont add all the Red Flag anti gun agenda to it.

Read Title VIII sections.
A restraining order against you is issued you cannot posses or own a firearm.
No Due Process and conviction required, just accusations to a Judge that issues the order only hearing one side.


This will start a wave of lawsuits as it should since it clearly violates the constitution.


This POS bill passed the House.
Write your Senators and tell them to stand against this nonsense.
Dont let the left shame them into passing this because they may look bad.
Act Now folks!!!
Tell them them to remove the gun grabbing BS the House put in the bill and then consider it.

From GOA





I hope you are right, but fear you are not.

I used to know a guy who had this happen to him. I really felt sorry for him because he was accused by his soon-to-be-ex wife (she was just being mean and wanted him to suffer by taking away his guns, no real fear on her part - according to him). Alas, there was nothing I could do to help him, other than offer him my sympathy.

So, this crap has been going on for years without change.