What Tiger Woods Says About Lautenberg

The Lautenberg Amendment, the provision of federal law that strips Second Amendment rights from people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, is one of those areas that’s poor ground to have a serious public debate on, since no one wants to appear to condone domestic violence. When one says as much, there’s typically the image of a man beating his wife. Lost in the detail is misdemeanor versus felonious assault, and how things work in the real world. The late happening with Tiger Wood is a good example of how domestic violence in the real world is never as cut and dry as people imagine it to be. That goes for Senator Frank Lautenberg as much as it does for Rep. Daryl Metcalfe.

I don’t think too many of us would argue that someone who beats their spouse to the point of serious injury ought not have their constitutional rights, including their constitutional right not to be in jail, jeopardized. In these cases, it’s much easier to identify victim and defender. But whether a lifetime ban on certain fundamental constitutional rights should hinge on unclear and often murky situations, is something we shouldn’t be afraid to have a serious debate over. Tiger Woods’ situation, where it’s not completely clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, is probably a lot more a typical than a lot of people would care to recognize.

3 thoughts on “What Tiger Woods Says About Lautenberg”

  1. I remember saying at the time of VA Tech, that were I bent on getting rid of firearms, I would do it incrementally. First, those with mental problems, like the VA Tech shooter, because, hey, you know those folks are unstable. See what happened?

    Next, find some high-profile domestic dispute, and hey, you know, those emotions run way too high, we can’t let those people have guns. See what happened?

    And how about those drunk drivers? Obviously, they spend their entire lives in a drunken stupor, so they must be added to the list of no-buy.

    Not to mention how unstable those veterans are that are returning from a war zone, anyone who’s ever partaken of ANY sort of drugs, and so on and so on.

    Obviously, there ARE some folks who should not be in possession of firearms. Problem is, most of those will find one no matter what the laws are.

  2. All the classes of people you list are at least potentially prohibited persons already. In NJ, alcoholics and drug addicts are (I haven’t actually read the 4473 to see if they are federally prohibited), there’s already the possibility for a veteran to be disabled under certain circumstances, etc. In fact, the VA Tech killer WAS a prohibited person, only no-one told the feds

Comments are closed.