Chris Christie Just Vetoed A Bill To Prevent Domestic Abusers From Having Guns
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had it pretty rough throughout his failed campaign for the presidency, and arguably rougher since allegedly being taken hostage by presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. In fact, you probably almost sympathized with him — I mean, that look of stupefied terror in his eyes while standing behind Trump giving a speech? Having his access to Oreo cookies restricted by Trump? Both very tragic. But just to remind you he’s still the same dick he was throughout his presidential campaign, on Monday, Chris Christie vetoed a bill to prevent domestic abusers from having guns.
The bill vetoed by Christie would have suspended the gun permits of alleged domestic abusers who are served with restraining orders, and, further, required them to turn in guns they already owned. The bill also mandated thorough investigation conducted by law enforcement to look into whether or not anyone served with a restraining order has a gun, and make sure any guns in their possession confiscated within 24 hours.
According to Christie, vetoing the bill makes total sense because “the larger problem of domestic violence … in most cases does not involve a firearm.” Which might be true enough, but a 2006 study by Duke University’s Terry Sanford Institute for Public Policy revealed removing or removing gun access from people served with restraining orders leads to a decrease in rates of intimate partner homicides. So, really, Christie’s point is only valid if you think problems should only be addressed if they can be sweepingly eliminated and the small progress the bill would make, and lives, however few, it could save, are irrelevant.
But, mind you, Gov. Christie is capable of shedding empathy for some human beings, as he sympathized with the poor, abusive firearms owners whom the bill places “redundant restrictions on.” How tragic.
He was also astute enough to recognize the bill looked pretty familiar, calling it “identical to legislation [he] conditionally vetoed last session” in November. Democrats were five votes short of overriding his veto back then, NJ.com reports. His rationale from the last time around still stands: Fix the problem by amending the bill to make it easier for victims of domestic abuse to get guns, because guns fix everything, don’t they?
Or, that is, everyone but the women and children disproportionately targeted by gun violence. Something gun violence and domestic abuse both have in common is that there’s a good amount of evidence both are ultimately rooted in our culture’s toxic standards regarding masculinity, and the vast majority of people forced to suffer the consequences of this are women. But considering the same people who, like Christie, oppose common sense gun control regulations also look down on women having basic human rights over their bodies, is this really much of a surprise?
And at any rate, as for the “good guy with a gun” or, in this case, the “domestic abuse victims with guns” theory, back in December, retired Army Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera told Dead State the theory is essentially drawn from the “fantasy world” of the delusional, and I’m inclined to think his military experience makes him a source worth listening to. Further, the “good guy with a gun” theory fails to explain why more firearms unfailingly mean higher rates of homicides, and the overall danger of arming the ill-prepared or emotionally unstable, let alone arming as many of them as possible.
It’s also likely Christie vetoed the bill because it too closely reflects the whole “liberals are coming for our guns” trope, frequently perpetuated by pro-gun conservatives, by requiring known abusers to relinquish any guns they already own. At the end of the day, the takeaway from Christie’s decision is that he would rather protect the rights of domestic abusers to hug their guns than their human victims/potential victims.
Christie’s decision to veto the bill came right before Trump voiced his view that school campuses would be safer if staff members were armed. The one positive takeaway from these latest revelations is that, hey, with views this similar in ridiculousness, maybe Christie actually isn’t Trump’s hostage, after all.