Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It is past time that Congress take action to end the gun violence epidemic that is harming communities across the Nation. We need to protect all people who are vulnerable to gun violence, and this includes survivors of domestic abuse.
Existing Federal laws allow abusive dating partners to access firearms. Known as the ``dating partner loophole,'' this dangerous gap in Federal law puts survivors of domestic abuse at risk every day.
I thank people for including this and acknowledging that this is an issue. However, it is critical that the Department of Justice swiftly issue regulations and definitions pertaining to the implementation of the dating partner provisions.
The definition of ``dating relationship'' in this act is not intended to be overly restrictive, and the definition should be broadly constructed to cover dating relationships as commonly understood in the Violence Against Women Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, intimate partner violence is a serious issue, and 50 percent of domestic violence fatalities are caused by their intimate partner. I understand this. I lived in it.
Let's be clear: this is a significant bill. We have made progress, but we have more work to do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my esteemed colleague from California, Congressman Mike Thompson, regarding the S. 2938, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
Mr. Thompson, is it your understanding and intent in supporting this bill that the Department of Justice promulgate regulations pertaining to Section 12005?
Is it further your understanding and intent in supporting this bill that the Department of Justice in those regulations define the meaning of the terms `serious,' `continuing,' `recent,' and `recently?'
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the clarification from the gentleman from California and pleased to know it is the legislative intent that the Department of Justice promulgate regulations to govern the application of section 12005, including defining the terms `serious,' `recent,' and `recently.' A consistent and authoritative interpretation of these terms that is reflective of the lived experiences of survivors of dating violence is critical to the successful implementation of this section.
Rulemaking is necessary to both ensure that in its application, the law actually protects victims of dating violence and to stave off chaos. A lack of clearly defined terms will encourage trial level litigation into the specifics of the intimate relationship. State judges who are adjudicating these cases will be determining the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator based on the laws of their state. The introduction of `serious,' `continuing,' and `recent' should not be read to require judges to include specific findings of seriousness or continuity. Instead, the existence of a dating relationship must be determined based on the enumerated factors set forth in subparagraph (B) of this section, with the acknowledgment that a finding of a dating relationship under a state law with a definition that is substantially similar to federal law constitutes a finding of `dating relationship' for the purpose of this section.
For example, in my state of Michigan, the term `dating relationship' means `frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between two individuals in a business or social context.' This very clearly parallels the definition of `dating relationship' in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and a finding of a `dating relationship' under Michigan law must constitute a finding of a `dating relationship' for the purposes of this section.
The Bipartisan Safe Communities Act shrinks the dating loophole, but it does not eliminate it. I will keep leading the fight to fully close it in future legislation. No dating abuser who has shown by his actions that he poses a danger to his victim, whose actions led to the issuance of a protective order after a hearing, should be legally allowed to possess firearms for the duration of the order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source