‘Boyfriend loophole’ should be closed

The Violence Against Women Act, which uses federal funding to assist victims of sexual assault and stalking and aims to reduce those crimes, has enjoyed broad support. Since its enactment in 1994, it has been reauthorized and expanded with bipartisan backing several times, lapsing in 2018.

Since then, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have been working to add new provisions relating to gun control, and some Republicans have balked.

In March, the House mustered passage of the bill with some bipartisan support.

Now, the Senate should follow suit, recognizing the bill’s language does not — as some complain — infringe on Second Amendment rights.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have objected to the fact that the updated law would close the “boyfriend loophole,” preventing those convicted of domestic abuse or stalking from purchasing a firearm.

Currently, the loophole allows those convicted of domestic violence and those who are under a restraining order to purchase a firearm if their crime did not involve the use of or attempted use of force so long as the perpetrator doesn’t live with the victim and if the perpetrator is not married to and doesn’t have a child with the victim.

But the term domestic violence shouldn’t be limited to its literal sense, wherein only those who share a domicile or have a child together can be a significant threat. Anecdotal evidence proves otherwise. And closing this loophole is overdue.

Just as there are carefully tailored exceptions to the free speech principles of the First Amendment, there are scenarios where limiting the right to own a firearm is prudent. This is one of those scenarios.

Under the updated language of the Violence Against Women Act, not everyone convicted of stalking or domestic violence will be barred from purchasing a firearm. Only those who used or who have attempted to use force on their victims will be prevented from purchasing a firearm. This is a crucial distinction.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, has said she will introduce a variant of the Violence Against Women Act in the Senate, but this is an unnecessary capitulation to the NRA. Congress has continued to fund programs related to the Violence Against Women Act even without authorization, but there’s no convincing argument for delaying passage in the Senate.