Violence Against Women Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

 

Violence Against Women Act

Long title	An Act to Control and Prevent Crime
Acronyms (colloquial)	VAWA
Enacted by	the 103rd United States Congress
Citations
Public law	Pub. L. 103–322
Statutes at Large	108 Stat. 1796
Codification
Titles amended	42 U.S.C.
U.S.C. sections created	42 U.S.C. ch. 136 (originally expired on February 15, 2019, reauthorized on March 15, 2022)
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 3355 by Jack Brooks (D–TX) on October 26, 1993 Committee consideration by House Judiciary Passed the House on November 3, 1993 (voice vote) Passed the Senate on November 19, 1993 (95–4, in lieu of S. 1607) Reported by the joint conference committee on August 10 and 21, 1994; agreed to by the House on August 21, 1994 (235–195) and by the Senate on August 25, 1994 (61–38) Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994
Major amendments
VAWA was reauthorized on March 15, 2022, by President Joe Biden
United States Supreme Court cases
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024)

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law (Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355) signed by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and the prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress when prosecutors chose not to prosecute cases. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the U.S. Department of Justice.

The bill was introduced by Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX) in 1994 and gained support from a broad coalition of advocacy groups. The act passed through both houses of the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support in 1994; however, House Republicans attempted to cut the act's funding the following year. In the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, a sharply divided court struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue the accused in federal court. By a 5–4 majority, the Court overturned the provision as exceeding the federal government's powers under the Commerce Clause.

VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 and again in December 2005. The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas, but it was reauthorized in 2013 after a long legislative battle. As a result of the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, the Act expired on December 21, 2018. It was temporarily reinstated via a short-term spending bill on January 25, 2019, but expired again on February 15, 2019. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill reauthorizing VAWA in April 2019 that includes new provisions protecting transgender victims and banning individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing firearms. In an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement, Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) led months of negotiation talks that came to a halt in November 2019. Senator Ernst said she planned to introduce a new version of the bill, and hoped it would pass in the Senate. VAWA was reauthorized on March 15, 2022, by President Joe Biden.

In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in United States v. Rahimi to uphold the law's domestic violence restraining order which restricts firearm possession for people convicted of domestic abuse.

Background

The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, Austria, in 1993, and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in the same year, concluded that civil society and governments have acknowledged that domestic violence is a public health policy and human rights concern. In the United States, according to the National Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Survey of 2010, 1 in 6 women suffered some kind of sexual violence induced by their intimate partner during the course of their lives.

However, as late as 1970–1990, domestic violence was regarded as a private matter and sometimes was ignored by the police. According to Zorza in Criminal Law of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence, 1970–1990, "throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, officers believed and were taught that domestic violence was a private matter, ill suited to public intervention." Unfortunately, the arrest did not deter and punish abusers. The results of three studies, conducted in Omaha, Charlotte, and Milwaukee, indicated that arrest alone did not deter abusers.

The Violence Against Women Act was developed and passed as a result of extensive grassroots efforts in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Advocates for the battered women's movement included sexual assault advocates, individuals from victim services, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, the courts, and the private bar. They urged Congress to adopt significant legislation to address domestic and sexual violence.

The Violence Against Women Act established new offenses and penalties for the violation of a protection order or stalking in which an abuser crossed a state line to injure or harass another, or forced a victim to cross a state line under duress and then physically harmed the victim in the course of a violent crime.

One of the greatest successes of VAWA is its emphasis on a coordinated community response to domestic violence, sex dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; courts, law enforcement, prosecutors, victim services, and the private bar currently work together in a coordinated effort that did not exist before at the state and local levels. VAWA also supports the work of community-based organizations which are engaged in work to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, particularly those groups that provide culturally and linguistically specific services. Additionally, VAWA provides specific support for work with tribes and tribal organizations to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking against Native American women. In December 2022, the Violence Against Women Act was amended to include Native Hawaiian survivors of gender-based violence and Native Hawaiian organizations in grant funding.

Many grant programs authorized in VAWA have been funded by the U.S. Congress. The following grant programs, which are administered primarily through the Office on Violence Against Women in the U.S. Department of Justice, have received appropriations from Congress:

• STOP Grants (State Formula Grants)
• Transitional Housing Grants
• Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders
• Court Training and Improvement Grants
• Research on Violence Against Native American Women
• National Tribal Sex Offender Registry
• Stalker Reduction Database
• Federal Victim Assistants
• Sexual Assault Services Program
• Services for Rural Victims
• Civil Legal Assistance for Victims
• Elder Abuse Grant Program
• Protections and Services for Disabled Victims
• Combating Abuse in Public Housing
• National Resource Center on Workplace Responses
• Violence on College Campuses Grants
• Safe Havens Project
• Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention

Debate and legal standing

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, that the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the U.S. Constitution, that the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted was an infringement of a citizen's right to privacy, and that the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). In 2005, the ACLU had, however, enthusiastically supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed. That provision would have allowed law enforcement to take DNA samples from arrestees or from those who had simply been stopped by police without the permission of a court.

The ACLU, in its July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women in their struggle to overcome abusive situations".

Some activists opposed the bill. Janice Shaw Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, called the Act a "boondoggle" which "ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared or viewed as violent and all women are viewed as victims". She described the Act in 2012 as creating a "climate of false accusations, rush to judgment and hidden agendas" and criticized it for failing to address the factors identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as leading to violent, abusive behavior. Conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly denounced VAWA as a tool to "fill feminist coffers" and argued that the Act promoted "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men".

In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States held part of VAWA unconstitutional on federalism grounds in United States v. Morrison. That decision invalidated only the civil remedy provision of VAWA. The provisions providing program funding were unaffected.

In 2005, the reauthorization of VAWA (as HR3402) defined what population benefited under the term of "Underserved Populations" described as "Populations underserved because of geographic location, underserved racial and ethnic populations, populations underserved because of special needs (such as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or age) and any other population determined to be underserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate". The reauthorization also "Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968" to "prohibit officials from requiring sex offense victims to submit to a polygraph examination as a condition for proceeding with an investigation or prosecution of a sex offense."

In 2011, the law expired. In 2012 the law was up for reauthorization in Congress. Different versions of the legislation were passed along party lines in the Senate and House, with the Republican-sponsored House version favoring the reduction of services to undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Another area of contention was the provision of the law giving Native American tribal authorities jurisdiction over sex crimes involving non-Native Americans on tribal lands. By repealing a portion of the 1978 Oliphant v. Suquamish ruling, such a provision could alter the constitutional balance between federal, state, and tribal power. Historically Congress has not allowed tribal governments to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-tribal members. The two bills were pending reconciliation, and a final bill did not reach the President's desk before the end of the year, temporarily ending the coverage of the Act after 18 years, as the 112th Congress adjourned.

2012–13 legislative battle and reauthorization

Senate vote on Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

  Both yes

  One yes, one no

  Both no

When a bill reauthorizing the act was introduced in 2012, it was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered foreigners residing in the country illegally to claim temporary visas, also known as U visas. The U visa is restricted to 10,000 applicants annually whereas the number of applicants far exceeds these 10,000 for each fiscal year. In order to be considered for the U visa, one of the requirements for immigrant women is that they need to cooperate in the detention of the abuser. Studies show that 30 to 50% of immigrant women are suffering from physical violence and 62% experience physical or psychological abuse in contrast to only 21% of citizens in the United States.

In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure (omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gays, Native Americans living in reservations, and immigrants who are victims of domestic violence). Reconciliation of the two bills was stymied by procedural measures, leaving the re-authorization in question. The Senate's 2012 re-authorization of VAWA was not brought up for a vote in the House.

In 2013, the question of jurisdiction over offenses in Native American country continued to be at issue over the question of whether defendants who are not tribal members would be treated fairly by tribal courts or afforded constitutional guarantees.

On February 12, 2013, the Senate passed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act by a vote of 78–22. The measure went to the House of Representatives where jurisdiction of tribal courts and inclusion of same-sex couples were expected to be at issue. Possible solutions advanced were permitting either removal or appeal to federal courts by non-tribal defendants. The Senate had tacked on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which is another bone of contention due to a clause which requires provision of reproductive health services to victims of sex trafficking.

House vote on Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013

  Democratic aye

  Republican aye

  Abstention or no representative seated

  Republican no

On February 28, 2013, in a 286–138 vote, the House passed the Senate's all-inclusive version of the bill. House Republicans had previously hoped to pass their own version of the measure—one that substantially weakened the bill's protections for certain categories. The stripped-down version, which allowed only limited protection for LGBT and Native Americans, was rejected 257 to 166. The renewed act expanded federal protections to gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.

On March 7, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

New provisions in the Reauthorization of VAWA 2013

Protection for Native Americans:

Prior to the 2013 passing of VAWA, Native American women who were the victims of non-Native American assault were not covered by the law. The Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe case from 1978 was overturned by provisions added to the new VAWA 2013, which also makes it possible for non-Native Americans to be prosecuted in tribal courts for domestic or dating violence perpetrated against Native Americans.

Protection of same sex couples:

LGBTQ people experience domestic abuse at the same 25%–33% rate as other members of the community. VAWA 2013 develops programs and laws to protect the rights of LGBTQ people who have been the victims of IPV (intimate partner violence). LGBTQ victims are expressly included in two important VAWA grant programs by the act. It is now against the law for LGBTQ people to be dismissed from shelters or other VAWA-funded services because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to a non-discrimination clause in VAWA.

Protection of victims of human trafficking:

Each year, 50,000 individuals are reportedly trafficked into the US, according to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Occasionally, victims of trafficking experience the same forms of abuse as those who have experienced violence from an intimate partner: physical and sexual violence, financial control, threats, intimidation, and restriction on freedom of movement.

Protection for Immigrant Victims of IPV (intimate partner violence):

Neither the number of U Visas nor the government's interest in studying crime in immigrant communities increased as a result of VAWA 2013. Based on data provided by Migration Policy Institute, 18.9 million (12%) of all women in the United States are immigrants. The number of immigrants who have been victims of IPV is unknown because national studies haven't been conducted to look at this issue in immigrant communities.

After passage

A total of 138 House Republicans voted against the version of the act that became law. However, several, including Steve King (R-Iowa), Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), Tim Walberg (R-Michigan), Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), Keith Rothfus (R-Pennsylvania), and Tim Murphy (R-Pennsylvania), claimed to have voted in favor of the act. Some have called this claim disingenuous because the group only voted in favor of a GOP proposed alternative version of the bill that did not contain provisions intended to protect gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, Native Americans and undocumented immigrants.

Reauthorizations

VAWA was reauthorized by bipartisan majorities in Congress in 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 3244), and again in December 2005, and signed by President George W. Bush. The Act's 2012 renewal was opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered undocumented immigrants to claim temporary visas. Ultimately, VAWA was again reauthorized in 2013, after a long legislative battle throughout 2012–2013.

On September 12, 2013, at an event marking the 19th anniversary of the bill, Vice President Joe Biden criticized the Republicans who slowed the passage of the reauthorization of the act as being "this sort of Neanderthal crowd".

As a result of the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019, the Violence Against Women Act expired on December 21, 2018. It was temporarily reauthorized by a short-term spending bill on January 25, 2019, but expired again on February 15, 2019.

On April 4, 2019, the reauthorization act passed in the House by a vote of 263–158, this time including "closing the boyfriend loophole". All Democrats voting were joined by 33 Republicans voted for passage. New York Representative Elise Stefanik said Democrats "...have refused to work with Republicans in a meaningful way," adding, "the House bill will do nothing but 'collect dust' in the GOP-controlled Senate. The bill has indeed been ignored by the Senate."

On December 9, 2019, following the firearm murder of a Houston police officer on duty by a boyfriend who had been abusive towards his girlfriend, Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo criticized Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Cornyn (R-TX) for preventing a vote on the VAWA reauthorization. Acevedo said "I don't want to hear about how much they care about lives and the sanctity of lives yet, we all know in law enforcement that one of the biggest reasons that the Senate and Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and others are not getting into a room and having a conference committee with the House and getting the Violence Against Women's Act (passed) is because the NRA doesn't like the fact that we want to take firearms out of the hands of boyfriends that abuse their girlfriends. And who killed our sergeant? A boyfriend abusing his girlfriend. So you're either here for women and children and our daughters and our sisters and our aunts, or you're here for the NRA."

In a follow-up interview with CNN, Acevedo said his criticism of Senators Cruz, Cornyn and McConnell was not political, because "death is not political—you see, death is final." He challenged Senator Cruz to directly answer whether he supports closing the boyfriend loophole, and said that failing to address it would put the Senators "on the wrong side of history". Senator Cornyn said that Acevedo was "mistaken" in invoking the VAWA.

On March 15, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the reauthorization of VAWA into law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (H.R. 2471); it is called the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. The reauthorization act does not include provisions to "close the boyfriend loophole". However, it did include funding the Ensuring Forensic Health Care for all Act (EFCA) to fund support for generalist forensic nurse training.

Programs and services

The Violence Against Women laws provided programs and services, including:

• Federal rape shield law.
• Community violence prevention programs.
• Protections for victims who are evicted from their homes because of events related to domestic violence or stalking.
• Funding for victim assistance services, like rape crisis centers and hotlines.
• Programs to meet the needs of immigrant women and women of different races or ethnicities.
• Programs and services for victims with disabilities.
• Legal aid for survivors of domestic violence.

Restraining orders

Restraining order granted to a Wisconsin woman against her abuser, noting the nationwide applicability of the order under Full Faith and Credit

When a victim is the beneficiary of an order of protection, per VAWA it was generally enforceable nationwide under the terms of full faith and credit. Although the order may be granted only in a specific state, full faith and credit requires that it be enforced in other states as though the order was granted in their states.18 U.S.C. § 2265 Part of the law's restraining orders included the ability to enforce domestic violence protection orders which barred people subject to family violence protection orders from having firearms.

Persons who are covered under VAWA immigration provisions

VAWA allows for the possibility that certain individuals who might not otherwise be eligible for immigration benefits may petition for US permanent residency on the grounds of a close relationship with a US citizen or permanent resident who has been abusing them. The following persons are eligible to benefit from the immigration provisions of VAWA:

• A wife or husband who has been abused by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident (Green Card holder) spouse. The petition will also cover the petitioner's children under age 21.
• A child abused by a U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent. The petition can be filed by an abused child or by her parent on the child's behalf.
• A parent who has been abused by a U.S. citizen child who is at least 21 years old.

Coverage of male victims

Although the title of the Act and the titles of its sections refer to victims of domestic violence as women, the operative text is gender-neutral, providing coverage for male victims as well. Individual organizations have not been successful in using VAWA to provide equal coverage for men. The law has twice been amended in attempts to address this situation. The 2005 reauthorization added a non-exclusivity provision clarifying that the title should not be construed to prohibit male victims from receiving services under the Act. The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program." Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act may not be sufficient to ensure equal access to services.

College VAWA Reporting

According to the Clery Act, colleges are required to federally report certain categories of crimes, including those covered under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Among these crimes, the most frequently reported on campuses are stalking, followed by domestic violence, and dating violence.

Criticism

The prison abolition movement has been critical of VAWA for its focus on policing, surveillance, and incarceration, particularly mandatory incarceration requirements, and the disproportionate number of people of color who have been arrested and incarcerated using VAWA provisions. Notable people who have criticized aspects of the VAWA include Victoria Law, Beth Richie, Gina Dent, Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, and Angela Davis.

Related developments

Official federal government groups that have developed, being established by President Barack Obama, in relation to the Violence Against Women Act include the White House Council on Women and Girls and the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. The ultimate aims of both groups are to help improve and/or protect the well-being and safety of women and girls in the United States.

Gun show loophole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Handguns for sale at a gun show

In the United States, the absence of a federal requirement for background checks for private sales of firearms is sometimes referred to as the gun show loophole or the private sale exemption. Federal law requires that, for commercial sales of firearms – sales conducted by someone "engaged in the business" of selling guns – the seller conduct a background check of the buyer. For firearm sales or transfers by private individuals, federal law does not require background checks, although some states and localities do require them.

The term "gun show loophole" primarily refers to "a situation in which many sellers dealing in firearms offer them for sale at gun shows without becoming licensed or subjecting purchasers to background checks". Regardless of the context of a sale, private sales to buyers known or suspected of being prohibited from possessing firearms and "straw purchases" by others on behalf of prohibited purchasers are illegal. The background check system and the private sale exemption were established by the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, commonly known as the Brady Bill. Under the Brady Bill anyone not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms is not required to obtain a background check on buyers seeking to purchase firearms from a seller's private collection. Along with federal laws for firearms purchases, there are also local and state laws regulating background check requirements for the purchase of firearms.

Advocates for gun rights find the "gun show loophole" terminology dubious, since the applicable law says nothing that is specifically about gun shows. They argue that current laws provide rules for commercial gun sellers more broadly, and intentionally do not regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms between private citizens, regardless of whether the transactions occur at gun shows or somewhere else. In 1999 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) reported that the definition of who is "engaged in the business" of firearms sales is overly narrow and that the Brady law did not help private sellers identify prohibited persons seeking to purchase firearms, while also allowing habitual arms traders to claim that they fall within the private sales exemption. Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have campaigned for requiring universal background checks. Implementing universal background checks would affect all private sales, not just those at gun shows.

Federal law requires the holders of a federal firearms license (FFL), such as gun stores, pawn shops, outdoors stores and other licensees, to perform a background check of the buyer and keep a record of the sale for any commercial sale, regardless of whether the sale takes place at the seller's regular place of business or at a gun show. Firearm sales between private individuals who reside in the same state – that is, sales in the "secondary market" and with an unlicensed seller – are exempt from these federal requirements. According to a statement by the United States Department of Justice in 2024, unlicensed dealers are a significant source of firearms that are illegally trafficked into communities.

Twenty-two U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories have laws that require background checks for some or all private sales, including sales at gun shows. In most of these cases, such non-commercial sales also must be facilitated through a federally licensed dealer, who performs the background check and records the sale. In other states, gun buyers must first obtain a license or permit from the state, which performs a background check before issuing the license (thus typically not requiring a duplicative background check from a gun dealer).

Provenance

In 1993, Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968. "The Brady Law", which went into effect in 1994, instituted federal background checks on all firearm purchasers who buy from a dealer who has a federal firearms license (FFL). This law had no provisions for private (i.e., non-business) firearms transactions or sales. The Brady Law originally imposed an interim measure, requiring a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual. The waiting period applied only in states without an alternate system that was deemed acceptable of conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. Personal transfers and sales between unlicensed Americans could also still be subject to other federal, state, and local restrictions. These interim provisions ceased to apply on November 30, 1998.

Sometimes referred to as the Brady bill loophole, the Brady law loophole, the gun law loophole, or the private sale loophole, the "loophole" characterization refers to a perceived gap in laws that address what types of sales and transfers of firearms require records or background checks. Private parties who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms are not legally required by federal law to: ask for identification, complete any forms, or keep any sales records, as long as the sale is not made in interstate commerce (across state lines) and does not fall under purview of the National Firearms Act (originally of 1934 and revised in 1968, which governs machine guns, short-barreled rifles, sawed-off shotguns, suppressors and destructive devices).

Jurisdictions requiring background checks for private sales

See also: Universal background check § States with universal background check laws

A number of states have background check requirements beyond federal law. Some states require universal background checks at the point of sale for all transfers, including purchases from unlicensed sellers. Pennsylvania and Nebraska laws in this regard are limited to handguns, and the Minnesota background check requirement is limited to handguns and assault weapons. Iowa (starting in 2011) and North Carolina (starting 2014) had state permit requirements for handgun purchases that included background checks, but Iowa repealed this requirement in 2021 and North Carolina did the same in 2023. Indiana and Tennessee also had handgun background check requirements that were repealed around 1981 and 1994, respectively. Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey require any firearm purchaser to obtain a permit. Illinois began requiring background checks for sales at gun shows in 2005 and began requiring checks for all private sales in 2014; in 2023 the state changed its law to require private sales to go through background checks processed by FFL holders Vermont passed new gun control laws in 2018, one of which requires background checks for private sales. Nevada's revised law went into effect in 2020. Virginia also started requiring background checks in 2020. A majority of these jurisdictions require unlicensed sellers to keep records of firearm sales.

All populated territories of the United States require purchasers to have a territory-issued license to purchase or take possession of a firearm, and the only firearms permitted in American Samoa are shotguns and .22 caliber rifles.

Some cities and counties have also established local laws affecting gun ownership. For example Tacoma, Washington, has a background check requirement for purchases made at gun shows on city-owned property (made redundant by a state law passed the same year requiring universal background checks), and New York City has its own gun licensing requirements (in addition to being in a state that requires universal background checks).

Some states and counties have adopted "Second Amendment sanctuary" resolutions or laws in opposition to universal background check laws.

The following table summarizes the state, territory, and District of Columbia laws requiring background checks.

Background checks for private sales (date effective)

	Background check by FFL required	State/territory-issued permit required
All firearms	California (1991)Colorado (2013) Connecticut (2013) Delaware (2013) Illinois (at gun shows in 2005, all sales 2014, checks by FFL holder 2023)Maine (for sales at gun shows and sales that are advertised, 2024) Maryland (non-handguns included 2021)Nevada (2020) New Mexico (transfers made without payment exempt, 2019) New York (2013) Oregon (2015) Rhode Island (1990) Vermont (2018) Virginia (transfers made without payment exempt, 2020) Washington (2014) District of Columbia (1976)	Hawaii (2013) Massachusetts (2006) Michigan (2024) New Jersey (2011) American Samoa (only shotguns and .22 caliber rifles permitted) Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico (sometime before 2000) U.S. Virgin Islands
Handguns	Minnesota (also for assault weapons, 2023) Pennsylvania (2010)	Nebraska (2010) (handguns prohibited in American Samoa)

History

See also: Gun law in the United States § History

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA) established the requirement that gun manufacturers, importers, and those in the business of selling firearms have a federal firearms license (FFL), and prohibited the transfer of firearms to certain classes of people, such as convicted felons.

In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act (GCA), under which modern firearm commerce operates. The GCA mandated FFLs for those "engaged in the business" of selling firearms, but not for private individuals who sold firearms infrequently. Under the Gun Control Act, firearm dealers were prohibited from doing business anywhere except the address listed on their federal firearms license. It also mandated that licensed firearm dealers maintain records of firearms sales. An unlicensed person was only prohibited by federal law from transferring, selling, trading, giving, transporting, or delivering a firearm to any other unlicensed person if they knew or had reasonable cause to believe the buyer did not reside in the same state or was prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms.

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), which relaxed certain controls in the Gun Control Act and permitted licensed firearm dealers to conduct business at gun shows. Specifically, FOPA made it legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an FFL holder, no background check or Form 4473 is required by federal law. FFL holders are required to keep a record of such sales in a bound book. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) said the stated purpose of FOPA was to ensure the GCA did not "place any undue or unnecessary federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens, but it opened many loopholes through which illegal gun traffickers can slip". The scope of those who "engage in the business" of dealing in firearms (and are therefore required to have a license) was narrowed to include only those who devote "time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms".

FOPA excluded those who buy and sell firearms to "enhance a personal collection" or for a "hobby", or who "sell all or part of a personal collection". According to the USDOJ, this new definition made it difficult for them to identify offenders who could claim they were operating as "hobbyists" trading firearms from their personal collection. Efforts to reverse a key feature of FOPA by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows were unsuccessful.

Government studies and positions

Firearm tracing starts at the manufacturer or importer and typically ends at the first private sale regardless if the private seller later sells to an FFL or uses an FFL for background checks. A 1997 report by the National Institute of Justice based on self-reported survey responses by convicted criminals found that fewer than 2% of convicted criminals said they bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 12% said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% said they bought it from family, friends, or an illegal source. A 2019 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that fewer than 1% of prison inmates who responded to a survey said they obtained a firearm at a gun show (0.8%).

Under Chapter 18 Section 922 of the United States Code it is unlawful for any person "except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms".

The federal government provides a specific definition of what a firearm dealer is. Under Chapter 18 Section 921(a)(11), a dealer is...

(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker.

According to a 1999 report by the ATF, legal private party transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases. Anyone selling a firearm is legally prohibited from selling it to anyone the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from owning a firearm. FFL holders, in general, can only transfer firearms to a non-licensed individual if that individual resides in the state where the FFL holder is licensed to do business, and only at that place of business or a gun show in their state.

The 1999 report said that more than 4,000 gun shows are held in the U.S. annually. Also, between 50 and 75 percent of gun show vendors hold a federal firearms license, and the "majority of vendors who attend shows sell firearms, associated accessories, and other paraphernalia". The report concluded that while most sellers at gun shows are upstanding people, a few corrupt sellers could move a large quantity of firearms into high-risk hands through gaps in current law, and recommended "extending the Brady Law to 'close the gun show loophole'".

In 2009 the U.S. Government Accountability Office published a report citing that many firearms trafficked to Mexico may be purchased through these types of private transactions, by individuals who may want to avoid background checks and records of their firearms purchases. Proposals put forth by United States Attorneys, which were never enacted, include:

• Allowing only FFL holders to sell guns at gun shows, so a background check and a firearms transaction record accompany every transaction
• Strengthening the definition of "engaged in the business" by defining the terms with more precision, narrowing the exception for "hobbyists", and lowering the intent requirement
• Limiting the number of individual private sales to a specified number per year
• Requiring persons who sell guns in the secondary market to comply with the record-keeping requirements applicable to federal firearms license holders
• Requiring all transfers in the secondary market to go through a federal firearms license holder
• Establishing procedures for the orderly liquidation of inventory belonging to FFL holders who surrender their license
• Requiring registration of non-licensed persons who sell guns
• Increasing the punishment for transferring a firearm without a background check, as required by the Brady Act
• Requiring gun show promoters to be licensed, maintaining an inventory of all the firearms that are sold by FFL holders and non-licensed sellers at gun shows
• Requiring one or more ATF agents be present at every gun show
• Insulating unlicensed vendors from criminal liability if they agree to have purchasers complete a firearms transaction form

Executive branch

On November 6, 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton issued a memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concern about sellers at gun shows not being required to run background checks on potential buyers. He called this absence a "loophole" and said that it made gun shows prime targets for criminals and gun traffickers. He requested recommendations on what actions the administration should take, including legislation.

During his campaign and presidency, President George W. Bush endorsed the idea of background checks at gun shows. Bush's position was that the gun show loophole should be closed by federal legislation since the gun show loophole was created by previous federal legislation. President Bush ordered an investigation by the U.S. Departments of Health, Education, and Justice in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting in order to make recommendations on ways the federal government can prevent such tragedies. On January 8, 2008, he signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) into law. Goals and objectives that the NIAA sought to address included:

The gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

At the beginning of 2013, President Barack Obama outlined proposals regarding new gun control legislation asking Congress to close the gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all firearm sales. Closing the gun show loophole became part of a larger push for universal background checks to close "federal loopholes on such checks at gun shows and other private sales".

After the 2019 Dayton shooting and 2019 El Paso shooting President Donald Trump expressed an interest in tighter background checks for gun purchases. After the shootings president Trump posted a response on social media:

"We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!"

After the Midland–Odessa shootings, in which the gunman had purchased a rifle through a private seller after a previous federal background check prevented him from purchasing a gun in 2014, Trump was quoted saying:

"For the most part, sadly, if you look at the last four or five (shootings) going back even five or six or seven years … as strong as you make your background checks, they would not have stopped any of it”.

In the wake of the March 2021 Boulder shooting President Joe Biden said at a press conference that the US Senate should pass legislation, namely H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, to close loopholes in background checks required for purchasing firearms.

Legislation

Federal "gun show loophole" bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses: two in 2001, two in 2004, one in 2005, one in 2007, two in 2009, two in 2011, and one in 2013. Specifically, seven gun show "loophole" bills were introduced in the U.S. House and four in the Senate between 2001 and 2013. None passed. In May 2015 United States Representative Carolyn Maloney introduced H.R.2380, also referred to as the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. In March 2017, Representative Maloney also introduced H.R.1612, referred to as the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017. In January 2019 she sponsored H.R.820 – the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2019. She again reintroduced it in 2021. and Rep. Mark Takano reintroduced it in 2023, after which it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

In 2022, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) was passed, which after interpretation by the United States Department of Justice, partly closed the gun show loophole. In August 2023, the U.S. Justice Department and the ATF proposed new federal rules to clarify regulations for firearms sellers at gun shows, flea markets and for online firearms transactions. The new rules require sellers to obtain specific approvals and run background checks for firearm sales.

In late 2023, the ATF addressed the guidelines included in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, noting that "Federal law does not establish a 'bright-line' rule for when a federal firearms license is required. As a result, there is no specific threshold number or frequency of sales, quantity of firearms, or amount of profit or time invested that triggers the licensure requirement. Instead, determining whether you are "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of your activities. Courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only a single transaction took place, when other factors were also present."

The Department of Justice issued a final rule in April 2024 that established a clarified definition of when a person is "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms, and is thus required to obtain a federal firearms license. The modified rule, which went into effect in May 2024, affected how guns are sold and expanded background check requirements in the United States. It replaced the concept that a seller "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms is someone who has a "principal objective of livelihood" as their goal with the concept that such a seller is anyone whose objective is "to predominantly earn a profit". The Department of Justice estimated that the rule modification would reclassify about 23,000 current unlicensed gun sellers as being profit-oriented and thus required to apply for an FFL, and said that the rule change might reduce the number of people motivated to cross state lines to take advantage of differences in state laws regarding whether background checks are needed.

Other studies and opinions

In 1996, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) released Gun Shows in America: Tupperware® Parties for Criminals, a study that identified problems associated with gun shows. The VPC study documented the effect of the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act in regard to proliferation of gun shows, which resulted in "a readily available source of weapons and ammunition for a wide variety of criminals, as well as Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh". According to the VPC, the utility of gun shows to dangerous individuals stems primarily from the exemption enjoyed by private sellers from the sales criteria of the Brady law as well as the absence of a background check. The director of the program which is located at the UC Davis, Garen J. Wintemute, wrote, "There is no such loophole in federal law, in the limited sense that the law does not exempt private-party sales at gun shows from regulation that is required elsewhere." In the context of avoiding pitfalls in legislation to end the gun show loophole, Wintemute's position states:

The fundamental flaw in the gun show loophole proposal is its failure to address the great majority of private-party sales, which occur at other locations and increasingly over the Internet at sites where any non-prohibited person can list firearms for sale and buyers can search for private-party sellers.

On May 27, 1999, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, saying: "We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." LaPierre has since said that he is opposed to universal background checks.

In 1999, Dave Kopel, attorney and gun rights advocate for the NRA, said: "gun shows are no 'loophole' in the federal laws", and that singling out gun shows was "the first step toward abolishing all privacy regarding firearms and implementing universal gun registration". In January 2000, Kopel said that no proposed federal law would have made any difference at Columbine since the adults who supplied the weapons were legal purchasers.

In 2009, Nicholas J. Johnson of the Fordham University School of Law, wrote:

Criticisms of the "gun show loophole" imply that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ("primary market sales") of firearms at gun shows. This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens.

In a 2010 statement from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: "Because of the gun show loophole, in most states prohibited buyers can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers with no background check. Many of these gun sellers operate week-to-week with no established place of business, traveling from gun show to gun show."

In 2013, the NRA said that a universal background check system for gun buyers is both impracticable and unnecessary, but an effective instant check system that includes records of persons adjudicated mentally ill would prevent potentially dangerous people from getting their hands on firearms. The group argues that only 10 percent of firearms are purchased via private sellers. They also dispute the idea that the current law amounts to a gun-show loophole, pointing out that many of the people selling at gun shows are federally licensed dealers. The group has stated in the past that: gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns, and that there is no "loophole", but legal commerce under the status quo (like book fairs or car shows).

According to a 1994 survey called the National Survey on the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), it was estimated that 60% of firearms obtained by private parties were from retail dealers, with the remaining 40% being from other private parties. Based on 2015 data, Philip J. Cook, who was the lead researcher for the prior NSPOF survey, produced an updated estimate of 22% for the percentage of gun transfers processed as private sales.

In 2016, a study published in The Lancet reported that state laws only requiring background checks or permits for gun sales at gun shows were associated with higher rates of gun-related deaths. The same study also found that state laws that required background checks for all gun sales were strongly associated with lower rates of gun-related deaths. Also that year Gabriel J. Chin, professor at UC Davis School of Law, stated that since there are no clear stipulations for the number of firearms sold before someone is required to be federally licensed and that since gun shows are usually held on weekends, "there is room for someone to claim 'this is a hobby or part of my collection' when it is also a substantial business."

Establishing universal background checks enjoys high levels of public support, with about 85% of the public or more in favor of the requirement (including about 77% of gun owners).Universal background checks were also given the highest rating of effectiveness among 29 possible gun control measures for reducing firearm homicides in a survey of 32 academic experts on gun policy reported by The New York Times in January 2017.

A position paper submitted to the Annals of Internal Medicine from the American College of Physicians in 2018 stated, "The Gun show loophole should be closed to ensure that prohibited purchasers, such as felons, persons who have been involuntarily committed for mental illness or are otherwise 'adjudicated mentally defective', and others who are prohibited from owning firearms, cannot make purchases."

State-level pro-gun lobbies oppose the framing of the issue since it "criminalizes the right to buy and sell lawful private property". In 2021, Wisconsin Gun Owners, Inc., a Second Amendment lobbying organization, opposed a ban on Wisconsin gun shows. The organization argued the ban was unjustified according to statistics and research that amounted to discrimination against gun owners.

Contributing events

After the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, gun shows and background checks became a focus of national debate in the United States. The Columbine shooters had obtained the guns via a straw purchase through private sellers at gun shows. Weeks after the shooting, United States Senators Frank Lautenberg and Jack Reed introduced a bill to require background checks for sales at gun shows in federal law. It was passed in the Senate, but did not pass in the House.

The Virginia Tech shooting on April 16, 2007, again brought discussion of the gun show loophole to the forefront of U.S. politics, even though the shooter passed a background check and purchased his weapons legally at a Virginia gun shop via a Wisconsin-based Internet dealer. Previously, in December 2005, a Virginia judge had directed the Virginia Tech gunman to undergo outpatient treatment, but because he was treated as an outpatient, Virginia did not send his name to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). On April 30, 2007, Tim Kaine, the Governor of Virginia, issued an executive order intended to prohibit the sale of guns to anyone found to be dangerous and forced to undergo involuntary mental health treatment. He called on lawmakers to close the gun show loophole. A bill to close the gun show loophole in Virginia was submitted, but eventually failed. Since then, Virginia lawmakers' efforts to close the gun show loophole were continuously blocked by gun rights advocates. The governor wrote:

I was disappointed to see the Virginia legislature balk, largely under pressure from the NRA, at efforts to close the gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy weapons without any background check. That loophole still exists.

After the July 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting in Colorado, the October 2012 Azana Spa shooting in Wisconsin, and the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting involving weapons legally purchased and owned by the shooter's mother, debates regarding the gun show loophole resumed. After the Aurora shooting, then-president of the NRA, David Keene, said that such tragedies are often exploited by the media and politicians. He said, "Colorado has already closed the so-called 'loophole' and the killer didn't buy his guns at a gun show." The handgun in the Azana Spa shooting was purchased legally in a private transaction, not at a gun show.

After the Charleston church shooting in 2015 raised the topic of background checks, former president Obama took executive actions in effort to close the gun show loophole. In accordance with The Brady Act and certain state's laws, licensed gun dealers may complete firearm sales with an incomplete background check after three days. The result of the background check in this case is technically referred to as a default proceed, which does not involve a private sale. The perpetrator was prohibited from purchasing a firearm but was able to complete the purchase of a gun used in the attack through a licensed seller when his background check remained incomplete after the required three day waiting period. After the Charleston attack, the three day default proceed provision also came to be known as a Charleston loophole. In a statement during the aftermath of the shooting, former FBI Director James Comey told reporters the shooter should have been denied, but the data was added incorrectly into the (NICS) database.

Dirtbag left

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag_left 

The dirtbag left is a style of left-wing politics that eschews civility to convey a left-wing populist and anti-capitalist message using vulgarity. It is most closely associated with American left-wing online media that emerged in the mid-2010s, such as the podcast Chapo Trap House.

Origins

Vulgarity is the language of the people, and so it should be among the grammars of the left, just as it has been historically, to wield righteously against the corrupt and the powerful.

—Amber A'Lee Frost, "The Necessity of Political Vulgarity"

The term was coined by Amber A'Lee Frost and is associated with her essay "The Necessity of Political Vulgarity", published in Current Affairs in 2016. While the essay does not directly use the term dirtbag left, it mounts a defense of politics that uses "vulgarity as a tool for fighting the powerful", citing libelles used to slander Marie Antoinette, Cohen v. California, and N.W.A's protest song "Fuck tha Police", among others. Frost writes that vulgarity in itself is not "inherently subversive", but argues that the left must reclaim it "from the Trumps of the world" lest it be "handicapped by [its] own civility."

Examples

The dirtbag left is most closely associated with the American politics podcast Chapo Trap House, which Frost co-hosted. Chapo emerged in 2016 in the context of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and subsequent presidential election. It combines political analysis and punditry from a socialist perspective with elements of comedy and irony, in the style of a shock jock. Chapo gained attention for its criticism of both the Republican and Democratic parties, particularly what the podcast claimed was the Democratic Party's complicity with a conservative agenda.

Beyond Chapo, media outlets that have been linked to, described as, or identify with the dirtbag left include the podcasts Street Fight Radio, TrueAnon, Stavvy's World, and Cum Town; the publications The Baffler and Current Affairs; and internet streamers Hasan Piker and Vaush. These outlets are noted as presenting comedy as "applied to an ideological reading of the news of the day, with a particular focus on political feeling or style."

Dirtbag left-style humor resurged after Donald Trump won the 2024 United States presidential election in the form of a trend called "Dark Woke", described as treating MAGA in the same vulgar manner that it has long treated everyone else. In The Guardian, Peter Rothpletz wrote that Democrats should use it to criticize Republicans under the label "Dark Woke" or #DarkWoke.

Tenets and rhetorical style

The dirtbag left has been described as an anti-fascist, anti-conservative, anti-nationalist, anti-centrist, and anti-liberal ideology. It has been linked to a variety of political stances, including anti–political correctness; anti-inequality; a disregard for civility; opposition to the wealthy and support for redistributive economic policies; and support for both the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders. The Iraq War and 2008 financial crisis have been cited as particular radicalizing events for the dirtbag left.

Rhetorically, the dirtbag left is noted as a vulgar, "bawdy offensive balance to cautious mainstream liberal politics", with "a dismissive attitude towards the niceties of liberal political correctness" that frequently direct insults and attacks through social media at specific public figures with political or economic power. The Times of London cited the rise of this rhetorical style as evidence of "the limitations of wokeness as a political force" and an example of the changing nature of politics on the internet.

Despite the connotations of the term dirtbag left, its use is not typically considered derogatory, with The New York Times calling the term "a defense mechanism that doubles as a nickname." Self-identification with the term is indicative of the dirtbag left's tendency toward irony and self-deprecation, with Frost noting that the term "speaks to a lot of people who have been dismissed or chided by liberals for embracing vulgarity, eschewing sanctimony or piety, and refusing to be civil to the right wing", adding that the term "says something positive about what we do believe, and what we’re willing to ruthlessly fight for, regardless of established etiquette." Chapo co-host Will Menaker joked that "if you sleep on a mattress on the floor and fuck in a sleeping bag, then you just might be the dirtbag left", before explaining that he sees the dirtbag left as a "scurrilous and funny approach to left-wing politics" that contrasts "utterly humorless and bloodless" liberalism.

Reception

Writer Amanda Marcotte argued that the ideology is linked to "that male privilege of intimidating people into assuming you're cool" and comparing it to the television series Jackass. Canadian writer Jeet Heer argued that the dirtbag left is a form of "doomed to fail" dominance politics, arguing that "derision is useful for one half of politics—defeating the opposing party—but has nothing to say to the crucial other half of forming alliances that can govern effectively for the people."

While right-wing misogyny often gets more attention, academics note that toxic masculinity within the dirtbag left has led to harassment of women and even resulted in a statement by the Democratic Socialists of America about sexism in its organization.

Dark Woke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Woke

Dark Woke is a social media phenomenon and political messaging strategy that emerged in January 2025 following Donald Trump's second presidential inauguration. The term's use advocates for a shift in progressive political communication tactics, pushing for more aggressive, direct, and politically incorrect approaches in responding to conservative media strategies. The term and its approach contrasts traditional communication norms in order to capture media attention similarly to Trump's approach, prioritizing visibility and emotional impact over disciplined debate.

Term

See also: Woke

Dark Woke represents a departure from traditional Democratic Party communication strategies, emphasizing disinhibited messaging and direct confrontation rather than conventional political decorum. The movement manifests primarily through social media content that combines progressive political messaging with provocative, dark humor and aggressive rhetoric against conservative opposition. Reported examples using the term or its hashtag included a Twitter post stating: “my Grandma voted for Trump so i made sure she fell down the stairs.” with a picture of "an elderly white woman recoiling in pain", and Gritty, the mascot of the Philadelphia Flyers, waving a Pride flag captioned with: “When he bludgeons homophobes with that flag that's #DarkWoke.”

Don Lemon Show senior writer and columnist for The Guardian Peter Rothpletz described the movement as emphasizing the importance of attention volume over attention type akin to Trump's disinhibition, contrasting with conventional Democratic preferences for avoiding negative attention. He cited Ezra Klein, writing for The New York Times, who argued that Donald Trump's disinhibited statements and attitude towards opposition is "the engine of Trump's success" due to it making his rhetoric compelling and allowing him to speak out and argue about unique subjects in unconventional manners. Rothpletz believed that advocates for dark woke argue that traditional Democratic messaging approaches have become ineffective in contemporary media environments. He referred to it as "a call for the party to fight the messaging war that actually exists, not the one they wish existed".

Political analysts, including MSNBC's Chris Hayes, noted that such actions represented a fundamental shift in approaching political communication.

History

Dark Woke has been described by media outlets as an evolution or extension of the "dirtbag left" approach in left-wing politics. During Trump's first presidential term from 2017 to 2021, Democrats broadly adopted what became known as the "Resistance" strategy, a broadly confrontational approach characterized by consistent opposition to Trump administration policies. The strategy manifested through legislative opposition, public protests, and aggressive social media engagement. Following Democratic electoral defeats in 2024, party leadership, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, urged colleagues to pivot away from personality-based conflicts toward substantive policy critiques. Senator Cory Booker described conservative dominance in certain media spaces and the rapid spread of narratives through right-leaning channels, and the necessity for Democrats to develop more effective countermeasures. Senator Chris Murphy described right-wing groups as having a "permanent information ecosystem" that allowed them to define democratic messaging online and prevent it from being amplified, like their viewpoints are.

The term "Dark Woke" first gained prominence on social media platform Twitter/X during Trump's second inauguration ceremonies. The term emerged as a reference to the earlier "Dark Brandon" meme, used to support Biden's presidency following his Battle for the Soul of the Nation speech against Trump and his supporters. The movement emerged amid significant political changes in early 2025 conducted by the Trump administration, including widespread corporate rollbacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and substantial changes to federal anti-discrimination policies.

In contrast to more centrist or establishment Democratic figures advocating for disciplined debate, lawmakers more aligned with progressive positions, including Virginia Representative Don Beyer and Ocasio-Cortez, demonstrated greater willingness to maintain confrontational approaches. Such approaches began to be raised, particularly towards Trump's pardon for January 6 defendants. The use of "dark woke" was catalyzed by an interaction between Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and conservative influencer Chaya Raichik. The exchange began when Ocasio-Cortez released an Instagram video explaining her absence from inaugural events, stating: “I don't celebrate rapists”. After Raichik criticized Ocasio-Cortez on her @LibsofTikTok account by stating that Trump should sue her in reference to a defamation settlement against ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos. Ocasio-Cortez replied, “Oh, are you triggered? Cry more.” The reply garnered 17 million views, and led to several accounts praising the more direct, unscrupulous approach to resistance and using the "Dark Woke" phrase.

The term extended to real-life actions, including videos depicting vandalism of products associated with conservative figures, such as the Tesla Cybertruck.

Criticism

Several Democratic lawmakers, such as New York Representative Tom Suozzi and Nevada Representative Susie Lee, expressed concern that reflexive and aggressive opposition to Republican talking points would damage their electoral prospects in moderate districts. Representative Lee argued against having a "knee-jerk reaction to be opposed to everything", and advocating for looking into Trump's policies to determine their appeal to voters in moderate counties.

Journalist Kieran Press-Reynolds generally dismissed the movement as an "algorithmic fad built on quick thrills". He also believed that superficial attempts to assimilate the movement's edginess into mainstream Democratic politics without embracing substantive political changes would not lead to electoral success, similarly to previous appropriations of online progressive movements like "Dark Brandon" and "BRAT".

Tax protester arguments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments

Tax protester arguments are arguments made by people, primarily in the United States, who contend that tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

Tax protester arguments are typically based on an asserted belief that their government is acting outside of its legal authority when imposing such taxes. The label "tax protester" should be distinguished from "tax resister", an individual who refuses to pay tax on moral rather than legal grounds.

In the United States, tax protester arguments are generally directed to the U.S. federal income tax.

Denial of tax liability

Arguments made by tax protesters generally deal with the U.S. federal income tax and not with other taxes such as the gift tax, estate tax, sales tax, and property tax (although some tax protesters have attacked the last category under allodial title claims).

Constitutional arguments

Main article: Tax protester constitutional arguments

Some tax protesters may cite what they believe is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (removing any apportionment requirement for income taxes) was never "properly ratified" or that it was properly ratified but does not permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income. One argument is based on the contention that the legislatures of various states passed bills of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g., semi-colons instead of commas) (see, e.g., United States v. Thomas).

Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because the United States Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 and therefore the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified (see Ivey v. United States and Knoblauch v. Commissioner in the referenced article).

Another tax protester argument is that the manner in which the income tax is enforced violates the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from having to make self-incriminating statements. In particular, they argue that the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being required to file a personal income tax return. This argument was ruled invalid by the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Sullivan.

The argument is occasionally made that Federal Reserve Notes (paper money) are not real, lawful money and therefore do not constitute income as they are not backed by gold or silver and are issued by a quasi-private organization; in the case of the Posse Comitatus and similar groups and individuals, hybrid arguments incorporating elements of the below-mentioned conspiracy theories appear to predominate.

Statutory arguments

Main article: Tax protester statutory arguments

Some protesters have claimed that statutes enacted by the United States Congress pursuant to its constitutional taxing power are defective, invalid (see e.g., the Irwin Schiff quote below), or that the statutes are misapplied by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the courts, lawyers, Certified Public Accountants (CPAs), law professors, and legal experts generally, and that the tax "protesters" are not liable for tax under the law (see below). Other protesters have argued that the term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code or the Constitution, and that the tax law should therefore be invalid.

These protesters claim that without clear definitions, Chapter 1 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations suggests IRS agents must rely on voluntary compliance. No court has upheld this argument, and many courts have rejected it, and 26 U.S.C. §§ 61–64 does define various classes of income ("Gross income", "[a]djusted gross income", "[t]axable income", and "[o]rdinary income defined").

Conspiracy arguments

Main article: Tax protester conspiracy arguments

Some tax protesters claim that since the year 1913 (the year of the inception of the modern Federal income tax), several generations of IRS employees, Department of Justice employees, the United States Congress, Federal court judges, lawyers, certified public accountants, and other experts have engaged in various continuing conspiracies to conceal the above deficiencies. For example, convicted tax offender Irwin Schiff states on his web site:

In 1986, 99.5 million Americans were tricked into filing and paying federal income taxes when, legally, they didn't have to do either. If this statement shocks you, it is only because you and the rest of the nation have been thoroughly deceived by the federal government (with federal courts playing the key role), and an army of accountants, lawyers, and other tax preparers. All of these have a vested interest in keeping you ignorant concerning the real nature of federal income taxes. ... [N]o provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires anyone to file or pay income taxes. This tax, unlike other internal revenue taxes, is strictly (censored voluntary). ... However, in order to deceive Americans of this, as well as provide federal courts and the IRS with deceptive passages on which to hang illegal prosecutions and illegal seizures, the Internal Revenue Code was written to make paying income taxes appear mandatory. The government succeeded in doing this by tricking the public.

Other arguments

Some tax protesters argue that an income tax is enforced upon threat of imprisonment, and is akin to "government sanctioned extortion", in which a citizen is forced to give up a percentage of his or her income in exchange for not being put in prison. Strictly speaking, a genuine inability to pay taxes is not a crime (although "willful failure" to pay taxes is a crime). For the most part, unpaid tax bills are settled through civil actions rather than in the criminal courts. The government may seize assets, file liens, garnish wages and pursue other civil legal actions to satisfy the tax debt, but persons may not be jailed simply for failing to pay taxes. Instead, criminal charges arise from closely related actions, such as willfully failing to file a tax return, willfully filing a false tax return, willfully failing to pay in a timely manner, concealing income or assets, and certain other actions constituting illegal tax evasion.

Frank Chodorov wrote "... you come up with the fact that it gives the government a prior lien on all the property produced by its subjects." The government "unashamedly proclaims the doctrine of collectivized wealth. ... That which it does not take is a concession." Issues with civil liberties are also charged at the tax system, such as social inequality, economic inequality, financial privacy, self-incrimination, unreasonable search and seizure, burden of proof, and due process. For these reasons, some argue for the FairTax proposal of implementing a national sales tax to replace the federal income tax.

In the United States, debtor's prison was seen as an inhumane practice, and was mostly abolished in the 19th century. Tax protesters argue that prison for tax evasion is just as inhumane, for the same reasons. One owes a bank or a person, while the other owes the government. Some argue for gentler penalties instead of imprisonment, such as fines, community service, wage garnishment, lien on house, taking tax money owed from a bank account, repossession, and foreclosure, much like the penalties of private or bank debt.

Position of the Internal Revenue Service

The position of the Internal Revenue Service based upon the statutes and upon the related legal precedents in case law, is that these and similar tax protest arguments are frivolous and, if adopted by taxpayers as a basis for failure to timely file tax returns or pay taxes, may subject such taxpayers to penalties. On its web site, the IRS states:

Some [people] assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court's opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word "voluntary," as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

Any taxpayer who has received more than a statutorily determined amount of gross income is obligated to file a return. Failure to file a tax return could subject the noncomplying individual to criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment, as well as civil penalties.

As stated in the Alaska District Court case of United States v. Rempel: "It is apparent ... that the defendants have at least had access to some of the publications of tax protester organizations. The publications of these organizations have a bad habit of giving lots of advice without explaining the consequences which can flow from the assertion of totally discredited legal positions and/or meritless factual positions." Commentator J. J. MacNab has stated that tax protester arguments will not work, and that with respect to people who use tax protester arguments, the Internal Revenue Service "will come after you with a passion".

Belief about the law as a defense in criminal cases

See also: Cheek v. United States

In criminal cases, the law distinguishes between beliefs about constitutionality of the tax law from other beliefs about the tax law:

A defendant's good-faith belief that he is not required to file a tax return is a valid defense to the element of willfulness, and the belief need not be reasonable if actually held in good faith. It is not, however, within the prerogative of the taxpayer to make a personalized finding of constitutionality. Thus, a good-faith belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional does not constitute a good-faith defense.

Works

• America: Freedom to Fascism, a film that promotes tax protester arguments
• Zeitgeist: The Movie, another film that promotes tax protester arguments