THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, January 18, 1997 TAG: 9701180010
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 74 lines
Legislation passed in haste seldom results in good law. And legislation crafted at the 11th hour of an election year is often worse.
Case in point: a new federal gun-control law, barring anyone ever convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun. This is bad law and should be repealed or amended quickly.
The ill-conceived law was Washington's annual ``get-tough-on-crime'' effort. Passed last September by the Republicans in Congress and with the support of President Clinton, it was intended to win votes at the polls in November. Both sides are now scrambling to find a way to fix the election-eve error.
While at first glance it might seem like a stroke of genius to find a way to disarm all convicted wife beaters, in practice, this law could ruin the careers of many law-enforcement officers and throw the military into turmoil without significantly reducing gun violence, the reason the bill was introduced.
Some gun laws are worthy of support. The 1968 federal gun-control law was sensible. So are the federal ban on assault weapons, the Brady gun law and Virginia's one-gun-a-month-restriction. But the new law is too broad and fails to distinguish between a man who commits a life-threatening act of domestic violence and one who slapped his ex-wife 30 years ago.
Domestic violence is far too prevalent, and those who commit it should be aggressively prosecuted. But it is naive to assume that everyone with a misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction is a menace to society.
During acrimonious divorce and child-custody proceedings, unfounded or exaggerated charges are frequently tossed around. Defendants are sometimes advised to plead guilty to such nuisance charges to avoid further litigation or to terminate lengthy court battles.
Yet this retroactive law could suddenly end the careers of people who did just that. Since it took effect, several local law-enforcement officers have found their jobs in jeopardy as they were reassigned to desk jobs or placed on administrative leave.
All across the country police officials are searching dusty personnel records to uncover long-forgotten domestic-violence convictions of their officers.
But the worst is yet to come. The Pentagon must determine how it will search the backgrounds of all 1.2 million people in the armed services with an eye toward disarming everyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Doing so could scuttle the military careers of many.
Supporters of the law say it's sound and ought to apply equally to all Americans. The architects were aware that most federal gun-control legislation excludes government employees, but this bill specifically includes ``government entities.''
``This amendment would keep guns away from violent individuals who threaten their own families, people who have shown that they cannot control themselves and are prone to fits of violent rage,'' said Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, who supported the provision in the U.S. Senate.
Certainly, law-enforcement officers, military personnel and other government agents who are unable to restrain their violent tendencies at home ought not be walking the streets with firearms. But a single misdemeanor conviction is not necessarily an indicator of someone prone to ``violent fits of rage.''
The new Congress must amend or repeal this sweeping, hastily drawn law. One group of congressional Republicans has suggested removing the retroactive provision. Thus, anyone convicted of domestic violence in the future would be barred from carrying a firearm.
That's a good start. But the best alternative would be to scrap the bill altogether and leave the hiring practices of local law-enforcement units to localities.
Nothing now prevents local police departments from refusing to hire anyone who's been convicted of domestic violence. Nor, at the federal level, is the FBI prevented from including the same strictures in its hiring guidelines.
Vote-seeking Washington politicians ought to refrain from passing last-minute bills that have unintended consequences. These laws burden those who must enforce them and are an intrusion by the federal government into areas best left to states and localities.