As Scott Lemieux noted yesterday, the Supreme Court’s decision inMcDonald v. Chicago “incorporated” the Second Amendment so thatthe individual right to bear arms now applies to all levels ofgovernment, including the states. This will lead to a slew of new cases trying to roll back gun-control laws. Alarmingly, some believe that one of the targets will be laws banning gun ownership forindividuals “convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.” It's especially troubling because loosening these guns laws will have a disproportionate effect on women given that guns are the primary weapon used in intimate-partner homicides.
When the Supreme Court decided Heller, establishing an individual's right to own a handgun for self-defense (and striking down a D.C. ban), TAPPED asked whether gun control was a feminist issue. While some would argue guns allow women to defend themselves, the numbers show that hand guns aremostly used against women -- not by them. This is because women arefar more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than a stranger. According to Women Against GunViolence, women murdered by an intimate partner are more likely tobe killed with guns than by all other methods combined. For women inabusive relationships, access to a gun increases the likelihood of ahomicide eightfold. Handguns in particular are found to increase the risk ofviolence against women.
Wherever you come down ideologically, it’s pretty clear that expanding gun ownership -- not to mention putting guns in the hands of those convicted of domestic abuse -- will increase the number of women killed inabusive relationships. Feminists’ concerns about violence against womenis not often put in the context of gun ownership. This is a big oversight; given that guns are used so often against women, feminist organizations should see gun control as a feminist issue. But if the absence of feminist groups from the amicibriefs or petitions in the McDonald case is any indication, this is achallenge they aren’t taking on.
-- Pema Levy
