[Drizzt]

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR(April 25, 2003) --

Marine Administrative Message 186/03, dated April 22, outlines Department of Defense Policy concerning the implementation of the domestic violence misdemeanor amendment to the gun control act for military personnel.

This message applies to all Marines, active and reserve.

The memo states, "The gun control act of 1968, as amended Sept. 30, 1996, makes it a felony for anyone convicted of a
'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. It also makes it a felony for anyone to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to any person they know or have reasonable cause to believe has such a conviction. The law applies to anyone who has a conviction for a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' regardless of when the conviction occurred. There is no exception for military personnel or for military issued weapons."

For times of war, the message states "commanders of deployed units who suspect or become aware that a Marine or Sailor has a misdemeanor or felony conviction for domestic violence, SHALL NOT suspend the service member's access to weapons during the deployment. Due to the fact that this may adversely impact unit readiness and the individual member's safety. Upon completion of deployment commanders shall immediately take the actions."

Marine Corps' core values do not advocate domestic violence. Protecting family members is an issue that is paramount to upholding Marine Corps standards. Anything that threatens the family, threatens the readiness and good order and discipline of the Marine Corps, according to the message.

[Hkmp5sd]

Another example of the government exempting itself from the gun control laws the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis

[citizen]

yup........:rolleyes:

[SapperLeader]

My Army National Guard unit was activated in january, and we had a few individuals(not in my company but in the battallion), who were latenburg(spelling?) violators and were non depoloyable, do not touch any weapons, and do not pass go to collect your 200 dollars. I dont see how the marines could pass out a memo saying they are exempt. We have had to sit through hours of briefings explaining the horrible consequences if you ever have or ever will commit domestic violence. I dont know if my unit wasn't able to deploy the violators due to the fact that we are on a homeland security mission rather than an overseas one at this time. Im curious to see how this turns out.

[OEF_VET]

What it says is not an attempt to exempt a Marine, it is simply meant to allow that Marine to continue being able to defend himself until he leaves the deployment area. It would be difficult to send a Marine home in the midst of a war. If the commander found out prior to deployment, he would be able to leave the Marine at home and get a replacement. that's not so easy to do when bullets are flying, logistical space is stretched thin, and every Marine pulling a trigger counts.

Speaking as a former Physical Security Manager in my last units' S-2 section, I can say that commanders do enforce the Lautenberg amendment. We had an E-7 with an assault conviction for a bar fight 15 years prior come up on the Lautenberg list. He ended up in some desk job until he was forced out a year before retirement. If a soldier can't be issued a weapon, he can't qualify; if a soldier is incapable of qualifying, he's put out of the service.

Frank

[JimP]

Wow, where to start - I'm not sure that memo is accurate. Lautenburg dealt with domestic misdemeanor convictions; NOT assaults of non-familial nature. Not sure that what is printed is accurate. The act makes SUPPLYING a weapon to an individual with a qualifying conviction a crime. The Marine's cannot just "exempt" themselves. I'd like to see this policy signed by the SecNav. I wouldn't believe everything I read about this one.....

For the short-bus folks: handing a Marine a weapon at San Diego prior to deployment would be a crime. That's why we all have to sit through the tens of hours of briefings, screenings and rantings and ravings when we get to a new duty station.

[The Reaper]

commanders of deployed units who suspect or become aware that a Marine or Sailor has a misdemeanor or felony conviction for domestic violence, SHALL NOT suspend the service member's access to weapons during the deployment.

So Johnny is in Trashcanistan on deployment and back home the wife decides to file a DV charge on him. Or due to an investigation he is charged with DV. His CO is notified and because of Corps guidance the CO is not required to immediately disarm Johnny and send him home. However, once the deployment is over Johnny gets disarmed.

This kind of thing does happen, and the Corps is simply giving the unit commanders guidance on how to deal with it.

[Ladybug]

I may be wrong, but I think all that memo is saying is that IF the marine is already deployed, and it comes to someone's attention that he has a domestic violence conviction, they cannot disarm him... which I think makes sense in a war situation. Having said that, I completely support the laws regarding domestic violence and gun-ownership. As much as I am opposed to gun-regulations, I think the gun laws that restrict people who are too irresponsible to obey the law from owning weapons are there for a good reason... if you want the priviledges afforded to you by our constitution, you should also conduct yourself as a law-abiding citizen, especially when it comes to totally unjustifiable, violent acts such as domestic violence. I'm sure I'll get a lot of flack for saying this, but that's my .02 on the matter.

[Sir Galahad]

Ladybug, the point is that citizens are deprived of a Constitutional right forever for a misdemenor, when it is supposed to be a felony that causes that process. Imagine, for a moment, that you were suddenly denied your First Amendment rights forever because you called someone a name you shouldn't have and they filed a misdemenor "hate crime" charge against you. Would that be just? In some states, misdemenor domestic violence can be verbal abuse.

Some other points:

1.) The law is ex post facto. A law passed after the fact to affect your former actions.

2.) Legally owned property becomes subject to automatic search and seizure (prohibited by 4th Amend.)

3.) It holds people accountable to a felony without a Grand Jury indictment, represents a second punishment for a single offense creating a double jeopardy.

4.) Family conflicts, historically an issue at the state level, become federalized (prohibited by 10th Amend.)

(Source: "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide" by Alan Korwin.)

The source of this law is a "feel-good" piece of junk politics aimed at resolving politically what is a social problem. Now, if spouse killers were directed to the electric chair instead of counseling and then parole, this wouldn't be such a problem. Another pyschological dynamic you might want to research is that many men who kill their spouses use a close-quarter weapon such as a knife or bludgeon. The nature of the crime, as is the relationship between killer and victim, is intimate, and, so, the weapon used follows suit in this pattern. A knife is an intimate weapon that requires the user to get close up to the victim. While O.J. Simpson has been found not guilty in the murder of Nicole Simspson and Ro Goldman, let's suppose for an instance that he did do it. He had access to firearms, yet chose a knife. The reasons are that in cases of abuse, the assailant has already shown a willingness to get right up close to the victim. Ergo, using a knife logically follows as weapon of choice in the murder. It also affords the killer to weild that last bit of power, sickeningly enough as it is to discuss, over the victim at eye-to-eye level, intimate and personal.

This "law" is but one of many making a hash of the Constitution. I grow closer and closer to Libertarianism day by day...

[Ladybug]

I see your point, but I still disagree.... I know I will probably be in the minority here. I personally don't believe that we have a God-given right to gun-ownership (I don't believe in God-given rights) - I believe that the Second Amendment is our government's way of saying that we are responsible and trustworthy enough to protect ourselves. If we prove ourselves irresponsible and untrustworthy, we lose the right. As with any privilege, there is responsibility. In my mind it has nothing to do with the danger of the wife being shot - it has to do with the husband being an irresponsible, reckless, and violent criminal. If you want to change the definition of domestic abuse to exclude verbal abuse, fine, attack that legislation. But as I said in my earlier post, if you want to enjoy the priviledges afforded to you by our constitution, don't beat your wife, don't get dishonorably discharged from the military, and quit being a felon! If I chose to ignore the laws, I have to pay the price. First Amendment, Second Amendment - they are not God-given rights, they are privileges given to me by this great country, which I value enough to keep my end of the bargain.

[Sir Galahad]

Ladybug, you use the term "priveleges" several times in regards to rights. They are not the same. Driving a motor vehicles is a privelege. Owning a firearm is a right. That is why the Constitution calls them "rights", not "priveleges". You may not believe rights are "God-given", but the Founding Fathers did. Rights do not descend to us from the government. They come to us as inalienable rights and upon which the government must follow heed to when administering said government. In other words, Constitional rights are not priveleges. They are the birthright of all Americans. This is why the Founding Fathers wrote them down. To protect the rights of the individual. That is, again, why they are rights and not priveleges. The 2nd Amend. is not "our government's way" of saying that we are trustworthy. It was the Fouding Fathers' way of telling the government that it is THEY who must remain trustworthy.
If you truly believe that rights are actually priveleges, not God-given, and subject to being taken away when the government deems it so, then I would suggest a closer read of the Constitution. If you are truly willing to lose, for example, your First Amendment rights forever if the goverment deems a misdemenor worthy of such punishment, then how dear do you hold those rights? I suppose one can say, "well, then don't break the law." But what if I change the law to cover acts you committed before passage of that law? Is that fair? Sort of reeks of the Inquisition, does it not? That is what I meant by ex post facto. What if you broke a law no one made yet? That's not what freedom is about. Nor is that what America is about.

Now a person should indeed "keep my bargain" with the government. However, when the government goes and changes the wording after they sign that contract, then that makes the government the scalawags and liars. But, again, rights do NOT come to us from the goverment as priveleges. They come as, yes, God-given, inalienable, RIGHTS guarunteed by the Constitution which the government is supposed to hold as the highest law in the land.

And, frankly, Mr. Lautenberg is not fit to empty the chamber pots of the Founding Fathers.

[Ladybug]

They come as, yes, God-given, inalienable, RIGHTS guarunteed by the Constitution

Well, I will have to ask God this Sunday... in the meantime, I will continue to believe that out of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, the blood of the brave men who fought for this nation, and the wisdom of those who followed, we live in a great nation which has proclaimed that we do have certain rights/privileges. If I have a God-given right to carry a gun, can I take one to jail with me? I mean, I have a right to protect myself - and I'll need lots of protection in jail! As I said, there is certainly legislation out there which does deserve to be attacked - take verbal abuse out of the law entirely, make violent domestic abuse a felony. There. But as I said, gun ownership comes with responsibility - beating your wife is not responsible behavior. If you want to be a wife-beating drug-using bank-robber, you are not responsible or trustworthy enough to own a gun. I don't care if God did tell you that you have a right to own that gun.

[Sir Galahad]

The thing is, Ladybug, you're using an extreme to justify an unConstitutional deprivation of rights. See, if it was ASSAULT and BATTERY it WOULD, in most cases, be a felony and not a misdemenor. The point is not about domestic violence. The point is about taking away Constituional rights over a misdemenor. That sets a precedent for more such abuses of government power. So, what you're saying is the possible abuse of a woman justifies government abuse of the Constitution. I am reminded of the ubiquitous phrase from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would trade essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety". Just because Lautenberg "should" have left verbal abuse out of the law does not make support of unConstitutional laws right. See, the laws that dictate what is or is not misdemenor domestic violence vary from state to state. Therefore, Lautenberg could not address that. It's to late to change the wording of Lautenberg. And it doesn't change the fact that making a misdemenor crime subject to felony punishment and subsequent loss of Constitutional rights is an abuse of government power.

But let's get back to defining rights as "priveleges", shall we? How is it that you see what are clearly called rights as priveleges? (By the way, yes, I do appreciate the blood of the soldiers spilled to protect this nation. Been a soldier myself and my family has had lots of our folk in uniform, though a few were wearing grey for the Stars and Bars some hundred years and change back.) It says "Bill of RIGHTS", not "List of Priveleges". See, soldiers in our Revolution fought against the Crown to get away from the notion of "priveleges" granted (or not) by a King. That is, priveleges given or withheld according to the whims of one or a handful of men. That is why the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written to safeguard individual liberty against governmental whim to withhold them for what may even seem like a good idea at the time. This is why they are not "priveleges". Priveleges are something you earn. Rights are something you are born with or are conferred upon citizenship after you immigrate and become a citizen. See the difference? Lautenberg is a piece of junk politics at its worst.

[Sir Galahad]

Also, Ladybug, you're trying to say that if someone thinks Lautenberg is a dangerous precedent, they automatically want wife-beaters to own guns (or perhaps, dare I say, might be along that bent their own selves.) We are not talking about felons. We are discussing a misdemenor where people lose Constitutional rights. Let's not throw around accusations of wife beating and protecting said scumbags, shall we?

[Ladybug]

safeguard individual liberty against governmental whim to withhold them

So my question was... can I take my gun to jail with me? If carrying a gun is my God-given right, and the government has no right to take that right away, then the felony/misdemeanor distinction doesn't really matter. Wife-beating, desertion, robbery and battery - use whatever examples you want, the government has no right to deem me unfit to carry a weapon?

[Sir Galahad]

Ladybug, may I assume you know the difference between a felony and a misdemenor? I am not so sure since you stated earlier, "...make violent domestic abuse a felony..." when, surprise, it already is (see also "Felony Assault & Battery".) Now, once more, in the case of Lautenberg, it holds people accountable to the punishment of a felony for a misdemenor crime. It is ex post facto. Once again, say that ten years ago you called a person a name that was 10 years after the fact ruled by federal law to be a "hate crime" to speak. Say that person had filed a police report those ten years ago. Now say that the punishment for breaking that new law was forfeiture of your 1st Amen. rights---forever. And that they decided to punish you now over ten years later with loss of rights for a crime that did not carry that punishment at the time. That is what is meant by ex post facto. And how about if they took away your 1st Amednment rights forever for a misdemenor "public obscenity" charge for saying a curse word in a public place? Are you really going to sit there and tell me that's "justice"?! Misdemenor. You know, NOT felony. Felony. You know, more severe than a misdemenor. Punishment for both is NOT "one size fits all".

[Ladybug]

Yes, but if GOD gave you a RIGHT to own a gun, and the government has NO RIGHT to take that gun away from you.... what does it matter if you commit a felony or a misdemeanor? The governemnt cannot deem me unfit to own a gun, EVEN IF I commit a felony, because owning a gun is a God-given right. So the distinction between felony and misdemeanor becomes moot.

[Sir Galahad]

And what does it matter to you? You think rights are "priveleges".:rolleyes: How about you answer my questions, and then I'll answer yours. You still have yet to say how it is you view rights as "priveleges". And you still have yet to answer how it is that ex post facto laws are Constitutional. And, even yet, you have to answer how it is that a misdemenor crime should forfeit Constitutional rights. The "God-given" is what the Founding Fathers said. I merely pointed out that the dictates of Ladybug do not trump the original language in the Constitution. Since you do not yourself believe this, do not attempt to take the heat off your weak argument by presenting this straw-man.

[fallingblock]

the level of transgression against the rights of your fellow citizens. A 'felony' is a crime termed serious enough to warrant trial by a jury of your peers with subsequent temporary removal of your freedom or other 'rights' as punishment or to protect the fellow citizens. What Lautenberg did was to allow the conviction of a 'misdemeanor' to retroactively relieve a citizen of their RKBA.

It essentially allows a judicial decision without trial by jury to deny a citizen of their RKBA retroactively...there are a lot of seriously negative implications for our constitutionally recognized rights/freedoms with this approach, as well as outright violation of the 4th and 6th amendments.:uhoh:

[Hal]

Well, let's just say for the sake of argument that one PFC Jessica Lynch, had a DV conviction.
Sure would cast a different light on the argument wouldn't it?
Come home a hero to the nation,,,,,only to face felony charges...

[mjydrafter]

Good morning guys, I just registered to add something to this post. The Lautenburg act, besides making a misdemeanor equal to a felony and the plain unconstitutionality of the ex post facto portion, includes any assualt charge. So lets say you were got in a fight back in the fifties, both parties of the fight are fined and sent on thier way, then fast forward to 1996, suddenly both parties must give up thier second ammendment rights for what could justifiably be considered a youthful indescretion.

The lautenburg act does not limit itself to "according to hoyle" wife beating, it includes any/all assualt charges. I'm sure there are some/alot of gun owners out there that are unknowingly in violation of the Lautenburg Act.

The most asstounding part of this crap legislation is that it has been on the books for 7 years. I believe the House judiciary commitee is disscussing the constitutionality of it at this time. I hope they come to correct conclusion, that every part of this act is unconstitutional. Matt

[Hkmp5sd]

I have a really dumb question. If someone is serving in the military and is physically outside the United States, how could he be arrested for being in possession of a firearm? There are all kinds of things I can do in foreign countries that are illegal to do in the US. If I do these things, they don't arrest me when I return to the US for violating US laws.

[Ladybug]

Sir Galahad - I told you that I do not believe in God-given rights. I don't think you're entitled to anything, just because you're alive. Whether we like it or not, society has always granted or denied rights in the form of governemnt. It just so happens that our great government affords us unprecendented freedoms and privileges, something for which I am enternally thankful (and the reason I too am in the military, FYI). As I said in my first few posts, with those freedoms come responsibilities. If I don't keep my side of the bargain, I lose.

I KNOW the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.... my point in my last post is that if you believe that the right to gun ownership is a God-given right, and the government has no right to interfere with that right, the distinction between a misdemeanor and a felony becomes moot. Why would the government have ANY right to take away your gun? Regardless of whether you were a law abiding citizen, a petty criminal, or a felon, you believe that the government should not be allowed to interefere with God-given rights. Right?

My ENTIRE point was merely that I do not disagree that domestic violence should be up there with the other irresponsible behaviors that make one unfit to own a gun. My question to you is, do you think that (because it is a God-given right) ANYONE should be allowed to carry a gun? I do NOT think that verbal abuse should count as abuse, and said so in my second post. I am NOT defending Lautenburg, simply by asserting that I agree that wife-beaters should not have guns. I said specifically that the definitions and classifications of DV should change - NOT the law that takes guns away from DV offenders.

As for
Well, let's just say for the sake of argument that one PFC Jessica Lynch, had a DV conviction.
No, that doesn't change anything... if she really was guilty of domestic violence, she deserves the same punishment as anyone else. What about the soldiers at Ft. Bragg last year who killed their wives after returning from deployment? Should they be exempt from going to jail, just because they were war heros? That makes no sense.

[Ladybug]

Hkmp5sd...

because the person is in the military. If you are a soldier on an American army base in Germany, for example, you are under the laws that exist on that base, not in Germany, and you can by arrested by the military police and tried in a military court.

[stringj]

Whether we like it or not, society has always granted or denied rights in the form of governemnt.
Whether you understand it or not, rights aren't granted by a government.

Jerry

[Ladybug]

You believe that God came down and gave John Lee Malvo the right to own a gun, and the government cannot take that right away.

I disagree and say that government DOES give/deny us rights, even if we like to believe that they don't.

I have a right to free speech, but I cannot call the White House and say that I have planted a bomb in the Oval Office. I have a right to own a gun, but not if I get dishonerably discharged from the military. The list goes on - pick any so-called "right" and I can give you the limitations of that right... limitations set by the government. The SAME government that gives me those rights. Most people in England believe in the same God I do, yet they do not have the privilege of owning a gun. Why? Because their government does not allow them to.

[stringj]

I have a right to free speech, but I cannot call the White House and say that I have planted a bomb in the Oval Office.

You certainly can! Does the government somehow physically stop you from doing so! There would definitely be repercussions if you did, but that is called being responsible for your actions. Rights have responsibilities associated with them but that in no way reduces the rights to privileges.

Jerry

[Ladybug]

Rights have responsibilities associated with them

That is my whole point.

All I am saying is, whether you believe God gave you the right to own a gun or not, it doesn't really matter as long as government is there to enforce that right. Whether or not you agree with it, government does tell us when/how/if we can carry a gun or exercise freedom of speech. Our constitution tells us that we have certain Rights because God gave them to us. But the REAL reason we enjoy those rights is because of the Constitution, which is given to us by our government. The Taliban told the Afghan people that God denied them the right to walk down the street with their face showing. Regardless of what God REALLY wanted, it was the government that had the power to grant/deny rights.

So, my point is, the government does have a right to limit our Freedoms, and they do so every day. So, then the question becomes, to what exent? And that is all we are really arguing about... I am against 90% of gun-control legislation, and the exent to which our Second Amendment is being whittled away. But I do still believe that governement has a certain right to take guns away from certain people.... I can't get anyone to answer my question - should ANYONE be allowed to own a gun? If you take your argument to the extreme, then even felons should be allowed to own guns. I am just saying that I believe domestic abuse offenders should be on the list of people who should NOT be allowed to own guns.

I think I've made my point, and am now just repeating myself... I don't want to hijack this thread (too late, I'm afraid!) so I'll stand by...

[stringj]

I think I've made my point

Yes, you have. The point you've made is that you are ignorant of what rights are. That's OK, I'm ignorant about a lot of things too, but what my rights are isn't one of them. I am not the person to explain it to you (I don't have the vocabulary or the writing skills), but hopefully some of the people on this board who taught me what freedom and rights are will come to your rescue. Hanging out in Legal and Political and reading threads will do wonders for the brain and the soul.

Jerry

[tyme]

hkmp5sd, many countries claim extra-territorial jurisdiction over their citizens for various serious crimes. The U.S. even has one for taking underage "partners" out of the country for the purpose of avoiding statutory rape laws.

ladybug, yelling fire in a crowded theater is specifically not part of your right to free speech. The government may not limit free speech at all. They can only determine what is and is not free speech.

Similarly, they should not be deciding what reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership are permissible. If the Supreme Court wants to tell me that guided missile cruisers fall outside of the definition of "arms" as written in the 2nd Amend., I won't agree, but that's life. If Congress wants to then establish a licensing system for those wishing to own guided missile cruisers, that's cool too. But it would be clearly incorrect to declare an m-16 as "not an arm" and therefore subject to any regulations Congress deems necessary.

You may consider the difference to be wholly semantics, but I think the difference is quite significant.

[Sir Galahad]

Ladybug, again, without going into dramatics, please state why ex post facto laws are Constitutional. In fact, please find in the Constitution what it says about ex post facto laws. After all the hand-wringing about government having the right to limit rights, please show me where the government has a right to pass ex post facto laws. I have asked you for this answer specifically. Instead, I am getting wheedling about the government having the "right" to limit our freedoms. No one is sayng that felons should own guns (that's an argument for another day.) What is being discussed here is WHY it is permissible for the government to take away a CONSTITUTIONAL right for a MISDEMEANOR with an EX POST FACTO law. And, for the umpteenth time, I ask again, would it then be the government's "right" to take away a Constitutional right for other misdemeanors such as spitting on the sidewalk, unsafe lane change ,etc., etc.?

One more time, actual assault and battery is a FELONY in all states. The issue of domestic violence has already been adressed. It doesn't matter if the crime is misdemeanor domestic violence or misdemeanor public urination, the point is that it is a MISDEMEANOR. Get past the emotion of "it's wife beating!!!!" and come to the logic of the discussion.

[fallingblock]

The answer to your question:

"I can't get anyone to answer my question - should ANYONE be allowed to own a gun?"

Is yes, it is every citizen's unalienable right to keep and bear arms. No exceptions.

Until, that is, the individual citizen has demonstrated a willingness to abuse the rights of others by criminal misuse of the firearm.

It then becomes an infringement of the rights of others and thus subject to restriction by society.

Only after the criminal misuse has occurred may the government legitimately step in and restrict the right of an individual citizen.

Any broad-spectrum 'class' type of infringement of rights (such as the proscription of firearms purchase by those with dishonorable discharges) is not constitutionally defensible. There is no demonstrated infringement of the rights of others which justifies denial of the citizen's RKBA on the basis of a DD.

Do these abuses of the concept of unalienable rights exist? Yes.

Are they constitutionally valid? No.

If a DV felony conviction (I would like to see it limited to firearms offenses) has been recorded against an offender, only after the event may the citizen's RKBA be infringred, not before and certainly not retroactively!

[Al Norris]

Read the following:

The Virginia Declaration of Rights (http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/D/1776-1800/independence/virdor.htm)
June 12, 1776
Authored by George Mason.

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Now compare to what Jefferson wrote:

Declaration of Independence
Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776
Authored by Thomas Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Many are the documents that can be read, in which the central themes of the colonies evoke the two above. That man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, given by the fact of birth is one central theme. Another is that governments ought to be and should be instituted by the people and the powers of governance are derived from the same, for the good of the whole. And finally, that the rights of the people not only predate the government but are pre-eminent to any powers of the government; such that it is the duty of the government to protect those rights.

Any other notion to the contrary on the formation of this nation leads one to suspect that such a dissenter to be unread as to American history.

Now as to the other notion that the 2nd amendment holds to anything other than defence of self and community against a tryannical government...well, a carefull reading of the arguements of the federalist and anti-federalists should suffice to clear this matter up. But for now, consider the original wording by it's author, James Madison: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Now that these basics are out of the way, why should anyones rights be taken away for an offense that is not a felony? The Lautenberg Act does not even compell a direct conviction. Merely an accusation is enough to strip one of ones right. And you agree with this?

[spartacus2002]

The main problem with the Lautenberg Amendment is twofold:
1. It gives a misdemeanor conviction the same power to deprive as a felony but without the requisite due process; and
2. The definition of "Crime of Domestic Violence" is EXTREMELY broad. It covers far more than the stereotypical "wife-beating". IIRC, it includes any physical violence against anyone the prosecutor can paint as having a close or semi-family relationship with the alleged abuser. It applies if the convicted offender was at the time of the offense:
--a current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim,
--a person with whom the victim shared a child in common,
--a person who was cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or
--a person who was similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;

As for felonies and rights, I have come to the conclusion that even felons still have the right to self-defense, and thus should have their 2d amendment rights restored after completion of sentence. After all, it is not the possession but the use of such firearms that we are concerned with.

[Hal]

LB,
Let me clarify re: PFC Lynch.

PFC Lynch was/is a supply clerk. In other words, she was/is in a non combatant support role.
This role fits rather well with how the military would treat a Lautenberg exempted individual of either sex. They would be regulated to a support role, and not issued a firearm. That's all fine and dandy, until TSHTF, as it did in Lynch's case. Once their company came under fire, both Lynch and her CO would have faced felony charges if/when she had been given a firearm to defend herself and the rest of the company.
Then there is also the part about her being assigned the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company. An inadvertant order by a CO, that she drive or even ride in a truck containing ammunition, would be a strict Lautenberg violation. Again, both Lynch and the person ordering her to that position could be up for felony charges.
I believe that's the intent of the memo,,,since the strict letter of the law is impossible to enforce,,,,the gvt simply exempts itself. The Marine Corps memo is probably only the first we'll see. I fully expect the other branches of the military, followed by federal law enforcment agencies, to issue the same "proclamations".

As far as the soldiers frm Ft. Bliss - What they did was AFTER the fact. ie: After they returned from deployment. - - You really need to look up and understand what ex post facto means.