Lautenberg Act? A little help please?


PDA






BigFatKen
April 11, 2006, 11:32 AM
I have a women friend in WI who hit her significant other when she was 18 and cannot buy from a dealer.

Can a person who cannot buy from a dealer because of the Domestic Violence Act still buy and keep a handgun they acquired by face to face sale, inheritence, etc.? If no, what about a long gun?

If you enjoyed reading about "Lautenberg Act? A little help please?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
April 11, 2006, 12:35 PM
If she's got a conviction that meets the definition of the evil mummy Lautenberg amendment, then she's a prohibited person, essentially putting her into the "felon in posession" category of law.

Prohibited persons may not posess firearms as defined by federal law, which includes essentially everything.

(exceptions, of which I am extremely uncertain are those statuatorilly deemed "not a firearm"... black powder muzzle loaders...??? can and ball handguns....? guns manufactured before 189x?)

Her best bet is to get an expungement.

WT
April 11, 2006, 12:40 PM
Everything I have read says that her goose is cooked. One snip I came across:

"The Lautenberg Amendment is a supplement to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Amendment makes it a felony for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. It is also a felony for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to anyone known to have such a conviction."

Be very careful where you tread.

BigFatKen
April 11, 2006, 01:42 PM
Wow. She is screwed. I am sure a handgun like the Ruger single action cap and ball revolver would serve her purposes. I just have to find out if that is legal. I think you can mail them.

geekWithA.45
April 11, 2006, 05:48 PM
BTW, she should check with a lawyer to see if Lausenberg really applies to her.

Generally, it's spouses, kids, and live ins, and there's a few kinks. Not a whole lot, but a few.

May the Evil Mummy Lautenberg answer to his creator for the monster he made.

skidmark
April 12, 2006, 10:16 AM
IANAL and all that, but I have seen a lot of folks who were disqualified for various jobs (LEO, corrections, etc) because of a Lautenberg conviction (making them unable to meet the basic requirement to carry a firearm as part of the job) who were reinstated due to a ruling on how that act was to be interpreted.

Seems that a guilty, nolo, or Alford plea at a bench trial, as opposed to a full-blown jury trial, was not to be considered a conviction.

I'm too lazy to look up the actual case, but I'm sure that a domestic relations lawyer could tell you. Heck, I bet a few divorced cops could give you the case citation off the top of their heads.

stay safe.

skidmark

BigFatKen
April 12, 2006, 04:27 PM
I'll tell her to get advice.

justashooter
April 13, 2006, 02:33 AM
to get on the list, she must have done a little more than "hit her significant other". fear of greivous bodily injury, or enacted injury, are criteria of consideration.

not saying that we can't grow up and learn to control our behaviours, but that she may be understating the incident.

beerslurpy
April 13, 2006, 03:04 AM
Lautenberg requires:
-that she have been convicted by a jury, or waived her right to a jury trial
-that she had a chance to challenge the accusation in court or waived that right

Lautenberg can be undone by:
-pardon
-restoration of rights
-expungement

This is relatively easy since it is just a state/local matter isntead of the dreaded "applying for restoration of rights after a federal offense." Which is essentially impossible short of a pardon since Congress defunded that branch of the ATF.

NukemJim
April 13, 2006, 07:36 AM
to get on the list, she must have done a little more than "hit her significant other". fear of greivous bodily injury, or enacted injury, are criteria of consideration.


IANAL

I am confused. Perhaps I misunderstood Lautenberg. I was under the impression that any conviction for "domestic violence" was enough to revoke gun rights. I remember reading that in one state a conviction bould be made even without physical contact/threat just arguing loudly. I do not recall source as always could be wrong.

Anyone know for sure?


NukemJim

BigFatKen
April 13, 2006, 10:05 AM
It was 1987 or so in Wisconsin.. She moved in with a boyfriend and played house. Under WI law that made each other "significant others". Old enough to borrow money, she got stuck with his debts since WI passed a CA like 50/50 split of assets upon breakup. Great if the guy has some money, but not so good if he borrows $15,000 on an overpriced truck at 18% and she gets the now worthless truck and a $14,000 loan balance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Lautenberg Act? A little help please?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!