My Life Inside Biden’s 'Boyfriend Loophole' for Gun Control (Part 2)

The armed stalker who got me a gun carry permit in DC

Click here to read part one at this link about when the FBI told me that my ex-fiance was having me followed. This post is free, but I hope you’ll consider supporting my work by subscribing to my newsletter with the button below. There is a free option to get newsletters directly to your inbox. To get everything I write, the subscription is just $6 a month. Thanks!

I was the 15th person — and the first woman— in Washington, D.C. to get a permit to carry a gun. The “special danger” that got got me the concealed carry permit was that I had two stalkers. I didn’t say that on TV. I only told the police and my editor at the time because I didn’t want to give them attention and put myself in more danger. Now, I don’t want to live in fear anymore for telling the truth.

To apply for a carry permit, I gave the police “gun control” office two letters from two different men who were stalking me. The first was addressed to me at work and talked about how he had been trying to get in touch with me in multiple other ways. The second one scared me more because he knew where I lived and wanted to prove it.

In August 2014, I opened my mailbox at home and saw a strange looking, handwritten envelope inside. The typed letter was from a man who said he wanted to date me. He wrote that he got my home address because he used to work at DC’s emergency call center. He listed the guns he owned.

I was terrified. I felt like he might be in the hallway or outside the front door. I immediately drove to the nearest police department. I ran from my car in the parking lot to the front door, as if I was being chased.

The police, however, were not that concerned. They said he just had a crush on me and wanted to date me. I was frustrated by their inability to see why I felt threatened.

I pointed out that the man was using city resources to know where I lived, and if he did anything to me, the city was liable. That at least got them to write a report.

As I left, I said sarcastically to keep the report handy if they get a call later about my dead body. They told me to go home and call the police if he showed up in person. That was not reassuring. I didn’t sleep well that night. I told my bosses the next day so corporate security was aware.

Several months later, DC suddenly allowed carry permits for the first time, and I tried to get one for myself.

I added that letter, the envelope with my home address, the police report number to my application. I also included the harassing handwritten letter at work and multiple threats against my life on Facebook. I then made a copy of the FBI letter to all media outlets that was hanging in our break room at the TV station. It warned that foreign terrorist organizations were targeting American journalists domestically.

I didn’t know if then Police Chief Cathy Lanier would approve my “special danger” since she personally approved every new permit. She had 90 days — three months — to make her decision and she used up every single day of that waiting time. I said repeatedly at the time in private that if the armed stalker decided to come at me in those 90 days, sue the city and Cathy Lanier.

Some of you followed my reporting that year at Fox 5 DC. Here’s one story that’s online in print with of the details. I uploaded this short video to remind you of the TV versions:

When Sgt. Colin Hall, who runs the conceal carry permit section for the Metropolitan Police Department, called me on the 90th day, he asked if I was sitting down. I wasn’t, so I sat on the edge of the TV truck door.

“You’re approved,” Sgt. Hall said (He’s since been promoted to Lieutenant.)

“You’re kidding me. She said yes?” I was genuinely shocked.

“Yep, but she said you have to know that she approved you only because of the threatening letters. She wants you to know that the FBI warning against reporters has nothing to do with it. I’m going to email you the approval now, so you can read it, okay?”

“Wait, Sgt. Hall, are you totally serious that I can carry a gun around DC now?”

He laughed. “Did you get the 18 hours of training? Did you bring that to the office?”

“Yes I did, all done with it,” I said, while walking around the truck in excitement. “I still can’t believe she said yes. Are you ready to have me armed on the streets? Do you need back up? Can I help the police now?”

He laughed again. “No, you just take care of yourself and be careful out there,” he said kindly.

I hung up the phone and stared at my cameraman. “You won’t believe what that call was about. I can legally carry a gun now.” He looked alarmed. I laughed.

I felt empowered that I could defend myself outside my home now. I was also in disbelief. Four years earlier, I had never shot a gun. Now I’m a trained conceal carry permit holder. And along the way, I helped get two unconstitutional gun laws fixed.

While this was exciting personal news. It didn’t help anyone else. The much more likely crime would occur by a stranger on the streets who gave no warning. Why did the court only say some people have the right to self defense outside the home?

D.C.’s Unique Gun Laws

Let me give you a recap of DC’s gun laws because they don’t exist anywhere else in America, and they keep changing.

The city had a total ban on possessing a gun until the landmark Supreme Court Heller decision in 2008. Then the city created an extremely complicated, expensive and difficult process to register it with the police.

As I mentioned in part one, the city requires that each time you buy any kind of gun, you have to register it with the city and get a card for it from the police. My first one is below.

I challenged that process in my reporting in The Washington Times (and even testified before the City Council) which resulted in a new law enacted in the summer of 2012 that eliminated many of the barriers to registering a gun. There are still several steps, and I don’t believe gun registration is constitutional, but at least the law now is better than the 17 steps it took me to buy one gun and register it.

Even though gun ownership changed, the city still maintained a complete ban on carrying outside the home. That changed only in 2014 when a lawsuit by District residents in the Palmer case got a court to side with them. I reported on that case and the impact of the ruling on Fox News in this story.

Finally in 2017, the plaintiffs in the Wrenn case got to the appeals court level and won, which overturned the “may issue law.” The District was scared to appeal to the Supreme Court because it had lost so badly in Heller —which affected the rest of the country — so the City Council grudgingly rewrote the new permit law to take out the requirement to prove a “special danger.”

This “special danger” concept is similar to other “may issue” states which require you to show a “need” or a “proper cause” — which is what the Supreme Court will be ruling on about New York’s law.

Biden’s “Boyfriend Loophole” and “Stalker Loophole”

When Pres. Biden brought up the “boyfriend loophole” in his speech to the joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, I studied the proposal. Read about that in part one of this story.

Biden, as author of the “Violence Against Women Act”, expanded the categories of people who are prohibited from possessing guns to include anyone who is subject to a court order restraining for harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. No one is disagreeing with all these categories of people should never be able to legally own or carry guns.

But now Biden wants to add in more categories of people. IT’s in his campaign platform, here:

Biden will enact legislation to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole” and “stalking loophole” by prohibiting all individuals convicted of assault, battery, or stalking from purchasing or possessing firearms, regardless of their connection to the victim.

“Regardless of their connection to the victim” means a person who assaulted, harassed or stalked someone and has no current relationship or even direct contact.

In real life terms, if Biden gets the “boyfriend loophole” enacted, I could have had had my ex-fiance’s guns taken away — even though we were not married and didn’t live together and weren’t even dating.

(I’m speaking hypothetically because I don’t know if he had guns, or if I could have won a case on stalking for having me under surveillance. And since then, my ex-fiance became a felon, so he cannot possesses a firearm under Gun Control Act of 1968.)

Now for the strangers who sent letters to work and home. The one who sent the letter to work didn’t worry me too much. I was concerned enough to show my boss at the time, and I have kept the letter to today, but it didn’t make me run to a police station.

However, the man who sent the letter to my home scared me. Biden’s “stalker loophole” proposed law would have meant that he could have his guns taken away even though we never met or had any contact. (Again this is hypothetically speaking if the police had investigated, made a case and the city prosecuted him for harassing or stalking me.)

In both situations, I don’t see how Biden’s proposals for closing these “loopholes” would make me safer.  If convicted, I don't believe the men would have turned over guns to the police.  Guns go missing easily when there is a threat the government will take them away. (Look at all the AR-15 pistols that have been lost in “boating accidents” since Biden’s executive action to require those guns get ATF approval.)

Also, the legal actions might have set these men off more and put me in worse danger.

So I can’t justify any infringement on the Second Amendment if it has no real life purpose to benefit society.

Women and Self Defense

So, what would make me safer in these instances? Carrying my own gun for self defense, which I do. 

Implicit in Biden’s policies is that women can’t defend themselves against armed men. It’s why he once said that he tells his wife Jill to shoot their shotgun into the air if there are armed intruders. He doesn’t think she can handle a gun to defend herself.

Of course we can’t defend ourselves physically from men in general because we are smaller and weaker. But the gun is an equalizer. 

I am certain that if the FBI called me now and told me that my ex-fiance was having me followed, I would be much less afraid. I wouldn’t need the comfort of Diplomatic Security watching me to feel safe walking home. I would know that I could defend myself on the street from a man because I have trained in self defense with a firearm. 

If I got a letter in my mailbox today from a stranger who found my home address and said he was armed, I would still take the letter to the police to report so there’s a paper trail. But I wouldn’t run from my car to the police station and then run from my car to my apartment to avoid being assaulted.

I would just reassure myself that my gun was loaded and secured on my body. I would walk calmly and confidently, knowing that I can save my own life. 

Note from Emily — I made this post free for all, but if you want to support me to continue this work and also get access to all my reporting (including part one in this series) please subscribe to my newsletter. It’s just $6 for a month. Click the button below. No ads and cancel anytime.

For those of you who will stick with the free newsletter, you can also help me do this work by forwarding this email to friends, neighbors and colleagues and sharing on social media with the link below. Thank you!