Navigation
Join our brand new verified AMN Telegram channel and get important news uncensored!
  •  

New Bill Aims To Protect Military Spouses’ Gun Rights

January 06, 2017

On Thursday, Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-TX-27) launched the “Protect Our Military Families’ 2nd Amendment Rights Act” aimed at protecting military families’ second amendment rights. The bill would allow the spouse of deployed military personnel to purchase a gun in the state that they are residing in, due to military orders.

In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed and stated that it would not allow the purchase of any handguns for any law abiding citizen, outside of their state of residency. The bill has since been altered to accommodate active military personnel but no changes have been made for the spouses of the deployed.

Farenthold said in a press release, “Our military spouses give up a great deal to support their active duty service member, often moving far from home and far from family to be with their spouse. Military spouses should not be denied their Second Amendment rights based on the orders of the military member. They have the right to defend themselves and their families just like anyone else.”

The new act rephrases the current codes so that military personnel and their spouses are one in the same and allow both to exercise their Second Amendment rights. It reads:

A member of the Armed Forces on active duty, or a spouse of such a member, is a resident of— ‘‘(1) the State in which the member or spouse maintains legal residence;  ‘‘(2) the State in which the permanent duty station of the member is located; and ‘‘(3) the State in which the member maintains a place of abode from which the member commutes each day to the permanent duty station of the member.”

It then concludes, “In the wake of recent, heinous attacks witnessed against our stateside military personnel at Chattanooga (July 16, 2015) and Fort Hood (November 5, 2009 and April 2, 2014)–as well as at other installations–taking steps that protect military families who are also near these installations is a necessity.”

[revad2]