This Governor Just Vetoed A Bill Allowing Domestic Violence Victims To Arm Themselves
The Virginia governor defended his veto by arguing that allowing victims access to firearms in order to protect themselves from their abusers would only make the situation "less safe."
"The bill perpetuates the dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves," McAuliffe told the Beacon. "It would inject firearms into a volatile domestic violence situation, making that situation less safe, not more."
McAuliffe continued: "In 2014, there were 112 family and intimate-partner related homicides in Virginia. Sixty-six of those deaths were with a firearm. I will not allow this bill to become law when too many Virginia women have already fallen victim to firearms violence at the hands of their intimate partner."
In response to the veto, gun rights advocates slammed McAuliffe, calling the governor's take "completely wrong" and arguing that the veto will cost abuse victims' lives.
"Governor McAuliffe claims we don't need to introduce a gun into a ‘volatile situation,' where there is a protective order in place," said Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave. "He's completely wrong. That situation is exactly where we DO want to introduce a firearm. Knowledge that the victim is armed is a great incentive for the aggressor to stay away."
"Van Cleave said the first 48 hours after a protective order is issued are the most crucial time for a potential victim to be armed," notes the Beacon.
"Protective orders really enrage the aggressor and the vetoed bill would have allowed the victim to be fully armed, yet in a discreet manner, even during those initial 48 hours," he added. "Sadly, the governor's veto will likely cost innocent lives."
The Virginia governor defended his veto by arguing that allowing victims access to firearms in order to protect themselves from their abusers would only make the situation "less safe."
"The bill perpetuates the dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves," McAuliffe told the Beacon. "It would inject firearms into a volatile domestic violence situation, making that situation less safe, not more."
McAuliffe continued: "In 2014, there were 112 family and intimate-partner related homicides in Virginia. Sixty-six of those deaths were with a firearm. I will not allow this bill to become law when too many Virginia women have already fallen victim to firearms violence at the hands of their intimate partner."
In response to the veto, gun rights advocates slammed McAuliffe, calling the governor's take "completely wrong" and arguing that the veto will cost abuse victims' lives.
"Governor McAuliffe claims we don't need to introduce a gun into a ‘volatile situation,' where there is a protective order in place," said Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave. "He's completely wrong. That situation is exactly where we DO want to introduce a firearm. Knowledge that the victim is armed is a great incentive for the aggressor to stay away."
"Van Cleave said the first 48 hours after a protective order is issued are the most crucial time for a potential victim to be armed," notes the Beacon.
"Protective orders really enrage the aggressor and the vetoed bill would have allowed the victim to be fully armed, yet in a discreet manner, even during those initial 48 hours," he added. "Sadly, the governor's veto will likely cost innocent lives."
