WASHINGTON, D.C. — A West Virginia woman who survived domestic violence in her home as a child is among those calling on members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House to again take up and then approve legislation expanding background checks to all commercial gun sales.

Marcia Drake, executive director of Women’s Aid In Crisis in central West Virginia, said the move would save lives.

“Without appropriate background checks, abusers kill women and children and, often, themselves,” Drake told MetroNews Wednesday from Capitol Hill.

She was part of a group of domestic violence survivors and advocates from across the United States who wrapped up Domestic Violence Awareness Month with a trip to Washington, D.C. to talk about, what they see as, the “life or death” role of guns in domestic violence.

According to organizers of the event, in 2011, 44 percent of women killed with guns in the U.S. were killed by current or former intimate partners and, in all mass shootings between 2009 and September of this year, at least 57 percent involved a shooter killing a current or former intimate partner or a family member.

Drake grew up in a home where guns were used for threats and intimidation.  “For me, the smell of gun cleaning oil almost brings a PTSD reaction because it is truly such trauma in the lives of, certainly, the victims, the wives, the girlfriends, but also the children,” she said.

She now works with an organization that supports victims of sexual or domestic violence and stalking in Randolph, Upshur, Barbour, Tucker, Webster and Braxton counties.  It’s one of 14 of its kind in West Virginia.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • LGill

    It amasies me that people are so stuiped that they jump on new laws when they don't know anything about the laws that are already in place. All the talk on gun controll makes me want to go and buy some more when I really don't need any. I wonder how many women protected themselves with a gun when they were abused any stats. on that.

  • C. F. T.

    Jason and all the rest of you social engineers, your spin is great, BUT the facts are the Laws when passed are far more restrictive than the sweet, tear-jerk stories and talking points.
    Example I have no problem buying an gun that requires an background check, but my freedom to sell it or buy that or another gun from an friend, acquaintance or even a stranger is my choice and my responsibility.

  • Independent View

    Women’s Aid In Crisis, is this the same group that provides advice and direction about where a young girl/woman can get an abortion?
    I believe it is. If so, Ms. Marcia Drake how do you reconcile, nah, how do you sleep at night knowing that you are advocating the death of unborn children?
    Millions of babies are aborted every year in the U.S. and most abortions are paid for by the govenment thru Planned Parenthood and other groups like them and the majority of Americans stand by and let it happen while a minority support it.
    And, you want to lecture me on the Second Amendment? Ludicrous!
    @ JASON, if you are going to quote from the 2nd Amendment, DO NOT take the 2nd Amendment out of context to bolster your argument. Here is the 2nd Amendment whithout your editing: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    Now, what part of the people's rights shall not be infringed do you not understand?
    However, my argument may be in vain as logic does not apply in a Liberal's thought process.

    • Jason

      Why am i automatically called a liberal everytime I post on here. My point of view is called being Jason. I dont care what group thnks what, if it makes sense to me i support it. I think its very similiar to children the way liberals dont like things cuz conservatives like them and vice versa. I vote for what makes sense. You sir, are obviously not a fellow independent despite your name.

      Also the reason i didnt quote the whole thing again is because the person i replied to already had

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      Ok so why cant i buy an m60 machine gun? A fully automatic AK-47?

      If my right to bear arms wont be infriged, why can't I own a m134 mini gun? Is that infriging on my right to bear arms, after all, I am part of the people they were talking about. Im sure it couldnt have anything to do with the fact that in 1790 they never imagined we would have 500 gun murders in 1 city in 1 year, or machine guns, or mass shootings. Jesus the Colt 45 hadnt even made an impact yet. Im sure giving everyone a gun wasnt much of a problem when you didnt have modern bullets, guns, or population density.

      Why are you ok that you cant own those guns, but pissed about background checks. Id personally love to make a mini-gun my newest gun purchase but that option is not available for "the people".

      Ive owned small caliber rifles, large caliber rifles, pocket pistols, .45's, shotguns, and muzzle loaders. So if we're modeling our gun control after the second amendment

      C.F.T - I agree with as a law abiding citizen wanting the choice, the problem is felons have the same choice. Like i said why would a felon take the risk to buy a gun off the street when they get more selection, safer atmosphere, and top of the line guns at a gun show

      • The bookman

        For a guy who is struggling to make it in this world, needing a hand up so he can manage two meals a day, you sure do have a lot of expensive toys...sure there's a story there too!

        • Jason

          Take note of the past tense i used, ownED

          • Jason

            I assumed by not saying I own and saying Ive owned, as in I have owned at one time, it was clearly implied they werent still my possesions. Dont know how else I could of said it to make it clearer

          • The bookman

            Sold them all, right! Knew there was a back story! Good luck...you are going to need it!


    Well said.






    • firegoat

      I AGREE

  • Hillbilly

    Background checks - now how many people do they think are going to go out and buy a gun whenever they think they want to kill someone?
    They already have one, or can get one from somewhere that does not slow them down. What a crock.

  • Monty

    "take up and then approve legislation expanding background checks to all commercial gun sales."

    Background checks are already required for all commercial gun sales.

  • Rick

    From reading this article I do not see any infringement on the 2nd or other Amendment. All they are asking for is to keep guns out of the hands of violent abusers and those with mental health issues. If you buy from a dealer you have to get a background check that says you can own a weapon. You can currently buy from an individual and there are no questions asked. I used to have to do these checks and it amazed me how many felons tried to buy weapons. I have defended the Constitution...I like all of it....for many years and don't see how this is an infringement at all.

    • firegoat

      It will be in the wording of the new perimeters, they will put in the new law.
      Example: You lost a parent, and it resulted in a mental break-down, 10 yrs ago.
      New law sets restrictions on mental patients,
      and even though, you have been fine for 9yrs,
      the libs in charge decide that you, and everyone like you, are too unstable to own a gun now.
      There are many other stipulations they can attach, to prevent anyone from owning a gun.

  • WhgFeeling

    I have to wander how nonbiased and exhaustive the study was that this group conducted to come up with these statistics? I would venture to say they might be just a little skewed. Not to mention with groups like this they tend to be hypersensitive and believe the majority of people are abusers or have been abused. I would imagine that if Ms. Drake would read these comments she would place everyone of us that are pro-2ndA into a category of abusers.

  • Fubar

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

    Anti-gun people always misinterpret our founding fathers need for protecting "the people's" right to bear arms.

    • Jason

      The key word is well REGULATED.

      How do a bunch of unorganized, untrained citizens, that are able to buy and sell guns freely with no regulation compose a a "well REGULATED militia"

      In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court stated thatthe adjective "well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training"

      Being able to buy a gun with 0 military or firearms training does not make you part of a well regulated militia, it makes you a person with a gun.

      My girlfriend doesnt know how to load gun, yet in 2 hours she could own an AR-15 with 30 round mag. Would you want someone like that watching your back in a war zone?

      • Joseph Goebbels

        Youz needz workz before zee get mein propagandize award...

      • The bookman

        It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.4 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

        When you "quote" items from articles you should a. Provide context. And b. Provide the source...


        The above is an explanation provided by the court in the case you cite making the exact opposite point you are trying to impress upon us...they specifically assert the second amendment as an individual right, not provided to a group assembled and trained in a well regulated militia...after great deliberation it was determined by the court that the inclusion of the militia language served as an indicator of the type of firearm individuals may possess without infringement...those types of firearms that would be found in a well regulated militia...they then struck down DC's prohibitive ban on handguns...

      • wvman75

        Regulated in the parlance of the time meant "trained". I know how liberals like to regulate everything and wish that was the meaning in the Amendment, but that is patently false.

        • 2XLPatriot

          Thank you wvman75. I've presented this argument on here before but, people only see things for face value and don't understand the true meaning.

        • wvman75

          I should have said it meant "trained" or "proficient".

  • wvman75

    Another assault on the Second Amendment, and right before deer season. They need to work on their timing. lol

    • editer

      Actually, this is in support of the Second Amendment, which opens with the word "well-regulated." If someone is talking about bearing arms in this country and is not talking about keeping them well regulated, he is talking against the Second Amendment.

      • WhgFeeling

        You forgot the last part....."shall NOT be infringed!!!"

        If someone is talking about bearing arms in this country and talking aobut infringement, he/she is talking against the Second Amendment.

        • Jason

          I was about to post exactly what Rick said.

          Why are you not up in arms when gun store runs a check on you? Its the exact same principle.

          The only thing this will infrige is convicted criminals ability to drive right past the gun store to a gun show and buy guns they shouldnt be able to legally obtain. A minor change for the average citizen that makes a major difference in the gun supply of criminals.


    So another rude generalization that includes all of us active and retired military members, hunters, sport shooters and other like enthusiasts by another advocate who labels all as the same. Lady you have no idea what PTSD really is..........your efforts may be genuine, but your approach and delivery sucks.

    • Jason

      Are you seriously implying only people in the military get PTSD?

      People who suffer abuse, especially if they were raped or witnessed a loved one murdered, ABSOLUTELY suffer from diagnosed PTSD. Gun cleaner to her may be just as much of a trigger as gun fire for a vet.

      Id love to see an article stating they dont.

  • Wowbagger

    "“For me, the smell of gun cleaning oil almost brings a PTSD reaction because it is truly such trauma in the lives of, certainly, the victims, the wives, the girlfriends, but also the children,” she said."

    Lady, there are a whole classes of good military grade clp (clean, lubricate, and protect) products some are odorless and some are made with food grade materials. You never have to endure the smell of Hoppe's Number nine again.

  • C. F. T.

    What is the political agenda of "woman's aid in crisis"?, and the likelihood of the groups existence without probable funding from Liberals like George Sorus.

    • Jason

      Heres a scenario
      An illegal alien is living in West Virginia. He's the only Mexican in town and knows no one. Hes sleeping with a married woman. He wants to kill her husband so he can marry her. Like most illegal aliens he has a fake ID. He goes to the store, presents his ID, they run a check, and deny him.

      He still needs a gun, but he's new in town and barely speaks English. He asks some shady characters, they tell him get the hell away from them if they even understand him.

      He decides to give it one more try and goes to the gun show. He presents his fake ID, points to a gun, counts the money, walks out with gun. 20 minutes later he kills the husband.

      While it sounds like a stretch, similar situations happen all the time.

      Seriously why would criminals or illegal aliens want to risk dealing with other criminals and take the chance of getting robbed, killed, arrested buying an illegal gun or whatever when, as a felon, they can go buy a gun in front of hundreds of people with no fear of being robbed, killed, or arrested.

      • Joseph Goebbels

        Ja Wahl youz very zee goodz, goodz thing somez people stupidz enuffz to believe Kocomaniyz storiez

      • The bookman

        What I noticed about your story is that the offender stopped at nothing until he got the gun...even though you are obviously a proponent of stricter acquisition regulations for guns, you understand the fundamental reasons behind the reluctance of the other side to walk down the same path with you... Take your story further...you win the argument and restrict the offender at the gun show...then what...the offender then goes and busts down your door, kills you and god knows what else to your family...does that end better?

        • Jason

          Or he's watched the daily news once in his life and knows how a gun show works, so just skips the first 2 stops

          • The bookman

            That was not the scenario you laid out...but I know you always change the story to suit your end!