Gov. Kathy Hochul will have a choice to make later this summer when she reviews A.544B/S.1985.

It’s hard to argue, given our shared history with domestic abuse cases, that seizing weapons in these instances isn’t a smart thing to do in certain situations. The legislation requires a firearm, rifle, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, disguised gun, imitation weapon, shotgun, antique firearm, black powder rifle, black powder shotgun, or muzzle-loading firearm that is found in plain sight or pursuant to a lawful search be seized. Weapons could be seized if the victim responds affirmatively to suspect threats questions in the Domestic Incident Report, the victim responds affirmatively to lethality assessment questions in the Domestic Incident Report or the officer has a reasonable belief that seizing the weapon is necessary to protect the victim or other persons present, preventing the risk of further violence or threat.

But Assemblyman Andrew Molitor, R-Westfield, raised an interesting question when debating the bill with Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, before the end of the legislative session last week. What happens if the weapon in question isn’t a gun? What if the abuser is using a hammer or a leather belt or anything else in a house that can be used as a weapon during a domestic incident? The question Molitor was really asking, in our opinion, is this – wouldn’t it be easier to keep the alleged abuser away from the home in the first place? It’s the same point Sen. George Borrello, R-Sunset Bay, made on the Senate floor in May, and it’s a question that Hochul should ask herself and answer before signing A.544/S.1985.

As is typically New York’s fashion, the legislature is fixated on the what rather than the who. When it comes to domestic violence, guns aren’t the only way an abuser can cause harm – which ultimately lessens the effectiveness of A.544/S.1985. The state needs to focus less on the weapons police see and more on the person behind the abuse.