Any post Heller case address Lautenberg Amendment?


PDA






bushmaster1313
March 17, 2012, 09:38 PM
Specifically, a case where the issue was removal of a constitutional right by a misdemeanor and not the ex post facto issue.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any post Heller case address Lautenberg Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
emails.chris
March 17, 2012, 10:40 PM
iirc there is, I saw a thread on calguns.net in the 2A subforum about it.

tomrkba
March 17, 2012, 10:47 PM
My bet is on SAF (Second Amendment Foundation). Check there first.

emails.chris
March 20, 2012, 01:33 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417935




anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Veteran Member

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Feds Closer to Losing Over Lifetime Ban for Misdemeanor: Litigated By Donald Kilmer
If you know anyone who has been impacted by lautenberg or feels that the lifetime misdemeanor ban is wrong, please email them a link to this thread. There are millions of us who feel this law is wrong. Let's go viral with this.

Donating money http://www.madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm would really help this case and a possible future case for the plaintif who was dismissed by the judge. According to Donald Kilmer, that plaintiff had the best 10th amendment claim.

The 10th amendment claim will get more people interested than just gun people.

The Madison Society is suing Eric Holder and the feds over the lifetime federal ban on "domestic violence" misdemeanants. People who know about this issue know just how easy it is to become prohibited due to one of these convictions.

The case is Enos V Holder.
http://madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm




Look at page 12. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/...-1-MTD-MPA.pdf The government is arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They say voting, speech, freedom of the press are, but not the second.

Update; Don Kilmer filed this Supplemental Authority. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.23.0.pdf

Update; Enos survived the motion to dismiss by the federal government.http://ia600300.us.archive.org/attac...15824.24.0.pdf

We are winning!
Update 10-3-11

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...2&d=1317699876

The government is grasping for straws. They really hate that bill of rights and this natural rights thing.

Update;

Post # 404

Update 1-11-12
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....15824.49.0.pdf

Update 2-29-12 Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...5&d=1330531223

Update 2-29-12 Don Kilmer filed a notice of appeal (just a few hours after the government's motion to dismiss was granted)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...4&d=1330544513

usmarine0352_2005
March 20, 2012, 01:37 AM
What's the chance of this winning?

emails.chris
March 21, 2012, 12:26 AM
its looking better and better.
Due to corruption its becoming obvious that this law is unfairly enforced, recently an anti gun politician in San Francisco got elected Sheriff, and got a DV charged reduced when a tape of his bruised/battered wife went public ( he decided to accept a plea deal ) plus Sean Penn had numerous DV situations when married to Madonna, yet S.Penn and the new SF Sheriff both can carry guns & "regular" people cant ( in some blue states ) . Its becoming clearer and clearer that DV charges are only used against poor and minority people and when the "1%" get DV violations they do not suffer the consequences. Its a matter of time, I'd say 3yrs at the longest.

DMF
March 22, 2012, 01:45 AM
I think some folks here might actually want to research the Enos case. Enos et al, are not fighting 18USC922(g)(9) based on Heller, they are claiming their right to firearms has been restored under California law, and therefore that they are not actually prohibited by 18USC922(g)(9).

I don't know why some people choose to characterize that case as something that it is not.

Lrp3rd
May 7, 2012, 09:58 PM
I presently find myself caught between a 1992 no contestDV and Lautenberg because of a CHL application. Help I'm in over my head. Is this what you are looking for?

RatDrall
May 8, 2012, 06:28 AM
I don't know why some people choose to characterize that case as something that it is not.


Because our laws are INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED and people get confused easily...

Milamber
May 8, 2012, 07:17 AM
It is amazing to me that there is no forgiveness for time served in relation to DV. Various felonies have a forgiveness period. Even if the two parties are no longer in contact or dead the DV ban on firearms follows them. A cooling off or sentance period is what is needed in my opinion. I belive the intention of disarming a DV convicted person was to protect the victim. There other side of DV conviction is that if your military it will get you a Dishonarable Discharcharge which alone will get you a life time ban.

nulook45
May 8, 2012, 07:33 AM
i was told a dv charge was dropped due to no credible wittness. they all recanted there statements so i was recharged with disorderly conduct . but because it was amended to disorderly conduct from an dv charge i am still prohibited in the feds eyes but not the states. it prevents me from buying from a dealer. and i have no remedy for this . i cannot get the record exsponged because Ohio only seals the record but does not wipe it clean . and i cannot get a restoration of rights because i wasnt found guilty of a disqualifying offense . Kinda a catch 22 . anyone know a better attorney in central ohio
please let me know

rajb123
May 8, 2012, 08:32 AM
How about trigger locks? ...these were part of heller too but in westchester county ny our trigger lock requirement is still law.

DMF
May 8, 2012, 11:35 PM
Because our laws are INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED and people get confused easily...WTH? There is nothing at all complicated about reading the actual facts in the case, and seeing that it is NOT a challenge of 18USC922(g)(9). I'm not a lawyer and I was able to find the facts, despite the propaganda posted that tried to claim the case is something it is not.

DMF
May 8, 2012, 11:40 PM
There other side of DV conviction is that if your military it will get you a Dishonarable Discharcharge which alone will get you a life time ban.That is simply not true. There is nothing in the UCMJ that requires a Dishonorable Discharge simply because someone got a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV). In fact it would be unlikely that the military would be able to send someone out on a Dishonorable Discharge over that. However, it is true the person would need to be discharged, but not a Dishonorable Discharge, from the military because there is no exception for possessing firearms for government duty for those convicted of a MCDV.

Again, people need to actually get their facts straight on this topic.

Milamber
May 9, 2012, 08:46 AM
Gee. Thanks for correcting me. Open discusion without fear of reprimand is the only way to spread the actual facts. I understand you may be frustrated by our lack of actual knowledge but all I ways trying to do was put in my 2c.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they make Lautenberg retrospective. Surely that makes it an unjust law in itself.

DMF
May 9, 2012, 11:23 AM
Gee. Thanks for correcting me. Open discusion without fear of reprimand is the only way to spread the actual facts. I understand you may be frustrated by our lack of actual knowledge but all I ways trying to do was put in my 2c.
Gee. I'm so sorry your fragile ego was hurt, but your "2c" was blatant BS. If you don't want to get called out for posting false info then get your facts straight BEFORE posting. What you posted about is a matter of objective fact, not subjective opinion, and therefore pointing out that it's untrue is not hindering open discussion. Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they make Lautenberg retrospective. Surely that makes it an unjust law in itself. Do you mean "retroactive," implying that it's ex post facto law? Then no it's not. The prohibition on possessing firearms and ammunition applies to actions that occur AFTER the law was passed. Meaning a person convicted of a MCDV can only be punished for possessing a firearm or ammunition after the law went into affect, not for possession of firearms and ammunition before the law went into affect.

nulook45
May 9, 2012, 08:07 PM
you guys are both right and wrong at the same time . lautenburger act is from a nj senator names lautenburger . the military looks at it as you have been lautenburgered and does discharge anyone prohibited from posesion of a firearm but it is not a dishonerable. The term is General Discharge for administrative reasons. And as such would not preclude you from the remedys of lautenburger and if corrected you could have your rights restored
and reinlist if you so wished aftewards. as for the retroactive comment it is well known if you were found guilty of Domestic Violence before the act went into effect you were still prohibited even tho lautenburger did not exist at the time of conviction. There were literaly thousands of police officers that had been in fights with there spouses that paid the fine and pled guilty to DV that were terminated because of this law. Remedys for lautenburger are to the best of my knowledge
TOTAL exspoungement of your record <in ohio they dont do this>
And a court order of Restoration of rights <in ohio a drug dealer can get this>
a Pardon from the Govenor of the state you live in.
restoration of rights from the attorny general of the state you live in <fat chance there.
ant of course dont get busted for DV in the first place .
As you can tell i have done alot of research on this subject it is a bad law intended fo be a good law but has been corrupted since it started

DMF
May 9, 2012, 11:44 PM
you guys are both right and wrong at the same time . lautenburger act is from a nj senator names lautenburger . the military looks at it as you have been lautenburgered and does discharge anyone prohibited from posesion of a firearm but it is not a dishonerable. The term is General Discharge for administrative reasons. And as such would not preclude you from the remedys of lautenburger and if corrected you could have your rights restored
and reinlist if you so wished aftewards. as for the retroactive comment it is well known if you were found guilty of Domestic Violence before the act went into effect you were still prohibited even tho lautenburger did not exist at the time of conviction. There were literaly thousands of police officers that had been in fights with there spouses that paid the fine and pled guilty to DV that were terminated because of this law. Remedys for lautenburger are to the best of my knowledge
TOTAL exspoungement of your record <in ohio they dont do this>
And a court order of Restoration of rights <in ohio a drug dealer can get this>
a Pardon from the Govenor of the state you live in.
restoration of rights from the attorny general of the state you live in <fat chance there.
ant of course dont get busted for DV in the first place .
As you can tell i have done alot of research on this subject it is a bad law intended fo be a good law but has been corrupted since it started Nothing I said was incorrect at all. I dealt with this in the military as an active duty and reserve officer, including as a Special Agent with a military criminal investigative organization (MCIO). I've also dealt with it a law enforcement officer after leaving the military.

Further, don't tell us you've done a lot of research on the topic, when you can't even get the basic terms, names, and facts, correct.

It's the Lautenberg (not Lautenburger) Amendment (not Act). It is so named for Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and was an amendment to the Gun Control Act.
http://www.monterey.army.mil/legal/military_law/lautenberg_amendment.pdf

The reason it's a bar to military service is that there is no exception for possessing a firearm for government service. For the other prohibitions the law allows an exception for possession of firearm in government service. Which is why felons may continue to serve in the military, while people with convictions for a MCDV may not.

Also, the term you are trying, and failing, to discuss is expunge, not exspounge. :rolleyes:

The process (and possibility) of seeking relief from a firearms disability varies in different jurisdictions, and on the nature of the prohibition. Getting relief from a 18USC922(g)(1) disability, or (g)(9) disability is different than getting relief from a (g)(3) disability. The way to seek relief is to research the nature of your disability and the applicable laws in your state.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#firearms-relief

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#firearms-relief-alternates

As for claiming that the Lautenberg Amendment is ex post facto law, that is simply untrue. The Lautenberg Amendment does not criminalize behavior that occurred prior to the law taking affect, only behavior that occurred after the law went into affect.

The crime, being possession of the firearm/ammunition is only a crime AFTER the date the law went into affect. It would only be "ex post facto" law if they had tried to criminalize the possession of the firearm prior to the law. So if a person had MCDV conviction in 1994 and had firearms up to the date the law went into affect on September 30, 1996, but legally disposed of those firearms the day before the law went into affect that person could not be prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(9). However, if they possessed the firearms after the law went into affect then they would be in violation of 18USC922(g)(9). You see it's only activity that occurs after the law, not before, that can be prosecuted.

As YOU can see, I've actually done research on this topic, and I also have direct real world experience with it.

YankeeFlyr
May 10, 2012, 12:49 AM
What Nulook45 said; a Dishonorable Discharge requires a court-martial conviction. This is the equivalent (for any offense that can warrant a court-martial) of a civilian felony.

gc70
May 10, 2012, 12:54 AM
Domestic violence disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) are addressed in both United States v. Chester (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1550384.html) and United States v. Skoien (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1531142.html).

No court has invalidated 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). The above case include interesting discussions of the scope of the right in the Second Amendment versus the scope and reach of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9).

DMF
May 10, 2012, 03:01 AM
What Nulook45 said; a Dishonorable Discharge requires a court-martial conviction. This is the equivalent (for any offense that can warrant a court-martial) of a civilian felony.Good grief, you too choose not to learn the facts?

There are different types of Courts Martial, and not all convictions are the equivalent of a civilian felony conviction. A Summary Court Martial conviction is NOT the equivalent of a felony conviction, and does not create a firearms disability. Summary Courts Martial cannot punish the convicted person with either a Bad Conduct Discharge or a Dishonorable Discharge. Special Courts Martial cannot punish the convicted person with a Dishonorable Discharge.

While it's true that Dishonorable Discharges are only given after a conviction at a General Court Martial, it is not required that they be given the Dishonorable Discharge. The Dishonorable Discharge is only one of many possible punishments available after conviction at a General Court Martial.

Further, anyone who has actual knowledge and experience with this topic knows that nulook45 has little clue of what he's talking about.

Milamber
May 10, 2012, 07:04 AM
Hey DMF, I started my post with GEE as an indicator of humor. My ego is fine I like to learn and if I am wrong about something I am more than happy to be corrected. This is obviously a subject you take seriously and my misinformation was not intended to piss any one off.;)

Either way you look at or spell it this is a typical knee jerk law that was ill conceived. I would be more than happy to see it repealed or modified.

Frank Ettin
May 10, 2012, 11:07 AM
First, continuing a discussion of on the UCMJ is off topic for this thread. It's time that side-bar ended.

Second, gc70 in post 20 answered the OP's question. If anyone else know of other cases which have litigated, or are now litigating, the Lautenberg Amendment, now is the time to chime in.

But let's stay on topic from here forward please.

anthonyca
September 21, 2012, 01:28 AM
DMF,

You Said,

"As for claiming that the Lautenberg Amendment is ex post facto law, that is simply untrue. The Lautenberg Amendment does not criminalize behavior that occurred prior to the law taking affect, only behavior that occurred after the law went into affect.*The crime, being possession of the firearm/ammunition is only a crime AFTER the date the law went into affect. It would only be "ex post facto" law if they had tried to criminalize the possession of the firearm prior to the law. So if a person had MCDV conviction in 1994 and had firearms up to the date the law went into affect on September 30, 1996, but legally disposed of those firearms the day before the law went into affect that person could not be prosecuted for violating 18USC922(g)(9). However, if they possessed the firearms after the law went into affect then they would be in violation of 18USC922(g)(9). You see it's only activity that occurs after the law, not before, that can be prosecuted."

DEFINITION FROM NOLO’S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

Latin for "after the fact." Refers to laws adopted after an act is committed, making it illegal retroactively. Or, it can refer to laws that increase the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9.

Does anyone honestly believe that a lifetime loss of an enumerated right after the fact is not ex post facto? Many of these people served no jail time, paid a small fine and were told by the court it was over. Then years later an amendment is attached to a federal omnibus spending bill after midnight that very people knew was there and bam, tens of thousands of instant federal felons.

In Enos v Holder, the federal government is also arguing that the rights to serve on a jury, vote and free speach are civil rights but the second amendment is not.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto

Zoogster
September 21, 2012, 02:13 AM
Without a doubt it is ex post facto, because it is a new penalty applied for something prior.

However legally it has been declared previously by the court to not be an ex post facto issue when reveiwed because firearm prohibition was not considered a new punishment.

The way they got around the ex post facto legality was to essentially declare that taking away your firearm rights for life is not a penalty or punishment. So someone that owned firearms for years after a conviction who suddenly became a prohibited person after having committed no new crime was said to have not received any new penalty for that crime.

If permanently removing your right to ever own a firearm is not a penalty, then it is not a new penalty applied after the fact, which is why legally it was not consider ex post facto.


In light of Heller, (and even if it wasn't a right, but that is besides the point) and it being an individual right, a strong case could certainly be made that retroactively removing firearm rights for a crime that did not have such a penalty when committed is in fact illegal ex post facto increase in penalty after the fact. Legal minds that were intellectually honest and not jutifying the means to suit ends they may like would have to agree.



That case however would only restore rights to those with convictions prior to the Lautenberg Amendment. It would not address the legality of convictions since then or in the future.
That would need a different legal argument and would pose a bigger challenge.
As a result I think many are reluctant to put a lot of money and effort into the ex post facto angle when it would not actually change the law itself.

Landric
September 22, 2012, 12:13 PM
It can be hard to gain ground on this issue because "reasonable people don't want violent domestic abusers to have guns". The big problem is that no one really understands how broad domestic violence laws are. In North Carolina, for instance, the following two situations would be "domestic violence" and therefore ban someone so convicted under Lautenberg.

1) A 16 year old punches his 15 year old brother and for one reason or another gets arrested and later convicted. All 16+ year old people are automatically charged as adults in NC, and one brother assaulting another is "domestic violence".

2) Two men are former college roommates. 25 years after they last lived together one assaults the other at a reunion. Since NC law says that "former household members" being involved makes an assault domestic in nature, and puts no time limit on how long ago such a person was a household member, someone convicted of such an assault would be guilty of "domestic violence".

DMF
September 22, 2012, 11:52 PM
It can be hard to gain ground on this issue because "reasonable people don't want violent domestic abusers to have guns". The big problem is that no one really understands how broad domestic violence laws are. In North Carolina, for instance, the following two situations would be "domestic violence" and therefore ban someone so convicted under Lautenberg.

1) A 16 year old punches his 15 year old brother and for one reason or another gets arrested and later convicted. All 16+ year old people are automatically charged as adults in NC, and one brother assaulting another is "domestic violence".

2) Two men are former college roommates. 25 years after they last lived together one assaults the other at a reunion. Since NC law says that "former household members" being involved makes an assault domestic in nature, and puts no time limit on how long ago such a person was a household member, someone convicted of such an assault would be guilty of "domestic violence". Good grief does anyone here actually research the law before making such blatantly false claims? :rolleyes:

Regardless of whether NC defines those two offenses as "domestic violence" neither one would make the offender prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law (18USC922(g)(9) aka the Lautenberg Amendment).

Here is the reality of federal prohibitions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (MCDV):

"It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child. The protection order must have been issued following a hearing as to which the defendant had actual notice and an opportunity to participate. The protection order must also include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim, or must include an explicit prohibition against the use of force that would reasonably be expected to cause injury."
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/federal_violence.pdf

In neither example you've given is the victim "an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner," so those offenders are NOT prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law even if NC calls those "domestic violence" crimes.

Please get your facts straight.

tomrkba
September 23, 2012, 01:18 AM
Heller declares the Second Amendment to be not an unlimited right. I don't see how they would allow Lautenberg to go away. It successfully denies people their rights for trivial crimes. This increases government power and they won't give it up.

limpingbear
September 23, 2012, 01:56 AM
Good grief does anyone here actually research the law before making such blatantly false claims? :rolleyes:

Regardless of whether NC defines those two offenses as "domestic violence" neither one would make the offender prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law (18USC922(g)(9) aka the Lautenberg Amendment).

Here is the reality of federal prohibitions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence (MCDV):

"It is illegal for a person to possess a firearm while subject to a court order restraining such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner or from engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child. The protection order must have been issued following a hearing as to which the defendant had actual notice and an opportunity to participate. The protection order must also include a specific finding that the defendant represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the victim, or must include an explicit prohibition against the use of force that would reasonably be expected to cause injury."
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/federal_violence.pdf

In neither example you've given is the victim "an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner," so those offenders are NOT prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law even if NC calls those "domestic violence" crimes.

Please get your facts straight.
DMF
Forgive me if Im wrong but this post only applies to a restraining order, not an actual conviction of DV.
And Landric was citeing NC state law, which if you are convicted, then it falls under Luatenberg and you are federaly barred from owning or possesing a firearm...
Just my understanding.....YMMV

DMF
September 23, 2012, 02:40 PM
Well I'm a forgiving person, but you are wrong.

I did a hasty cut and print from some resources I have saved and only put in the restraining order portion. Here is the rest of the info I should have included:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html#description
"Q: What is a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?”

A: “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that:

1. is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law;
2. has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
3. was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

However, a person is not considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless:

1. the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right of counsel in the case; and
2. in the case of a prosecution for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either —
a. the case was tried by a jury, or
b. the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.

In addition, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held provides for the loss of civil rights upon conviction for such an offense) unless the pardon, expunction, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, and the person is not otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing firearms.

[18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33), 27 CFR 478.11]"

Again, people need to get their facts straight, rather than posting false information.

skiddy
September 28, 2012, 08:18 PM
I also have been impacted be the lautenberg amendment a silly fight in 1994 with my then girlfriend now wife and mother of my 18 child resulted in a assault-4 which I plead to so I could return home. At that time I choose the deal as we did not have much money and I wasn't risking anything so valuable as my 2nd amendment right, who ever would have thought! The whole ex post facto aspect of this has caused me great embarrassment and even put me at risk as I had no Idea this law even existed or pertained to me as it came 2 years after this was behind me! I feel like like a hard core felony criminal even though I have tried to live a respectful life! it really feels like I'm being punished all over again for something I have paid for! Not saying what happened was right but no one was hurt and my wife had even told the police she only wanted me removed from the house for the night. Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought this would cost me so much With the rise in home invasions I am not allowed to protect my self or my family this is the scary part I have to rely on the police for that! Out here in the country it takes them 20 min to get here if they hurry! If I under stand the law of what makes this a qualifying conviction was that I waived my rights and plead guilty because I was able to make a Knowingly and Intelligent decision. But how is that possible if 2 years later this amendment further penalizes me, how can my decision be Knowingly and Intelligent if this aspect did not yet exist I would have fought it tooth and nail! what can I do to help this cause any suggestions.

Milamber
September 29, 2012, 06:23 AM
@skiddy. Family violence has been made a crime with a life sentance. It has been legally proven that the law enforcement is not there to protect you. You and your family are thanks to this amendment now volunteer victims. The amendment needs repealing and a reasonable law put in its place.

FV victims need protection from their attackers. But FV laws are so all encompassing a draconian law such as this needs to be changed. I belive just like drug possession it should have a time served plus good behavior. No misdemeanor should carry a life sentance.

RatDrall
September 29, 2012, 09:07 AM
any suggestions

Yes.

Meet with your Senators and Congressman.

Also, consult an attourney and see if you can have your conviction expunged or pardoned.

In addition, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held provides for the loss of civil rights upon conviction for such an offense) unless the pardon, expunction, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, and the person is not otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing firearms.

skiddy
October 1, 2012, 04:24 PM
I am having a lawyer look in to it today In 1995 when I waived my right to a jury trial I did so knowingly and Intelligently as far as what the punishment for that crime was at that time. My 2nd amendment right was not up for grabs if it had been I would have fought that sucker tooth and nail! so how can it be a qualifying conviction, because from where I stand how can it be knowingly and Intelligently if the penalty did not exist for me to contemplate and weigh against my decision to plead guilty! any thought on this angle.

livinglife
October 24, 2012, 09:59 AM
Hi everyone. I came upon this site as I do a lot of surfing the web to find others that have had the same injustice done to them.

I am a victim of Lautenberg amendment and was not even aware of it for 20 years. I was in a skirmish with a girlfriend back in 1990, when I was only 23 years old. I was arrested for terroristic threats and disorderly conduct. My attorney at the time told me to take a plea to just disorderly conduct and the DA would drop the terroristic threats and I would do no jail time. At that time there was no Lautenberg amendment, so I heeded my attorney’s advice and took the plea.

Since that time I married, had children, started a business and acquired my pilot’s license. I have never been in any kind of trouble since. I have contributed to society in nothing but a positive way.

In early 2009 when the economy started to take a plunge I decided it might be a good idea to arm myself. It was not unusual for me to be in my office, alone, where thousands of dollars are kept. I also, once a week, took bank deposits and cash to the bank. We had two thefts at my business and after talking with the local police about those thefts was told that there had been several businesses that were broken into recently in the area. I decided it was time to arm myself and time to purchase a firearm.

I did a lot of research on firearms and what kind would suit my needs. I talked it over with my family. This was not a knee jerk purchase. Finally I went to a gun store to make my purchase on January 10, 2009. I filled out the paperwork and waited while the store ran a background check on me. After half an hour they came and told me that the PA State Police needed more time to process the background check. I said ok, put a deposit down on the gun and waited. After two weeks I called the gun shop and asked if they heard anything. He told me I was denied but could not tell me why. I contacted the PICS and had to leave a message. Two days later a representative from PICS called me and explained that I lost my 2nd amendment right when I plead guilty to disorderly conduct.

I was dumbfounded to find out I lost my gun rights back in 1997 when this amendment was passed, 7 years AFTER I was charged..........At first I thought it was a mistake and hired an attorney to look into it. My attorney could not find any record online through his programs. I contacted the county court; I actually went down there, only to find out that the court had no record of it as well. I also went to the District Justice office where the hearing was held and they also had no record. My attorney contacted the PA state police to find out where they were getting their information and found out they received it from the local police department. The only record of the incident was in an old filing cabinet at the police station. We found out that when the police do a PICS that they include the local police station of your residence. Unfortunate for me I never moved far from home and was still living in the area.

I spent well over $3000 on attorneys fees to get to the bottom of this and try and get my gun rights back. After all that I was told that the only option I had was a pardon from the Governor. So I started looking into what that took to complete only to find that in Pennsylvania it takes an average of four years to even be considered for a pardon and about a 5% change you will be granted one. The paper work needs to be filled out completely and accurately or it will not be considered. Of course that requires having an attorney fill it out. Local attorneys gave me a price of $2000 to complete a pardon request. This would include attending with me to any hearings or meetings with the board. I am very disgusted. I write my representatives all the time. None seem to take any interest. I feel my only hope is to get this thing overturned.

Jesse

tyeo098
October 25, 2012, 10:19 AM
Jesse... Disorderly conduct = Domestic Violence?

And your story is so sad :( I hope this gets overturned so you can enjoy our hobby, and protect yourself.

Buy a good sturdy baseball bat for now.

JERRY
October 25, 2012, 10:53 AM
domestic violence laws have created more victims than offenders.

if youre arrested for DV but plea to disorderly conduct...et cetera it should not result in being ruined for life, but thats exactly what it does.

livinglife
October 25, 2012, 06:20 PM
My wife grew up around guns. Her dad, my father in-law has quite a collection. He doesn't know about my problem and he is always asking me to go to the gun club with him to shoot. My wife wont bring her gun into the house in fear that I might be arrested. Shes kinda, by association, lost her gun rights too. I can not be in possession of a gun or ammunition. So if a gun is in a dresser draw in our bedroom does that constitute being in my possession? My attorney said that would be a good question, no doubt law enforcement would have no problem saying if I have access and its in my house that I have possession of a firearm.

This is really government at its worst............

tyeo098
October 26, 2012, 09:56 AM
A locked safe that you do not know the combo/have the key to is out of your possession.
It has to be available for your immediate control. Like in a dresser. That will get you in trouble.

You cannot immediately control it if it is locked in a safe you cannot access.

bushmaster1313
October 27, 2012, 11:12 PM
I would consult with an attorney up on firearms law.

DMF
October 28, 2012, 04:30 PM
While I don't know how the statutes read in PA, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I find it hard to believe a disorderly conduct charge would meet the federal elements for a prohibiting conviction under 18USC992(g).

Further, if it was a prohibiting conviction under federal law there would need to be a judgement of conviction (aka mittimus) in the court records to prove the conviction actually occurred.

So you are claiming there is no record of conviction in the court records, but if that were true then even if a disorderly conduct conviction in PA met the requirements for a fed prohibition, there is no way to prove the conviction occurred. A police report of the investigation, is not the same as court records proving the conviction.

Now there might be something in PA law the prohibits you, but for the feds they would actually need a certified judgement of conviction from the court to prove the conviction occurred.

An attorney should know this, and I suggest you find a competent attorney experienced in federal and state gun laws and consult with that attorney about your options.

livinglife
October 28, 2012, 06:47 PM
Like I said in my post. I had an attorney. Attorney Karl Rominger, you might recognize the name. PA doesn't have or did not have a specific domestic violence law that they charge you with. I was charged with disorderly conduct M3. I could have received up to 1 year in prison for it. PA law considers any conviction that has a DV connected to it to be disqualifying. When I went to county court I had a docket number and a reference number. They could verify that it was a good docket number, they could not see any information as to what it was for. I have a 3 ring binder 3 inches thick of information battling this crap. As far as PA and PICS is concerned I no longer have gun rights and can not purchase a gun. I have $4000 for anyone that can reverse their decision and get my gun rights back.

DMF
October 28, 2012, 07:08 PM
Nope, I don't recognize the name, and frankly don't care. The reality is lots of lawyers are very good in certain types of cases, and not others. As I said, find a competent lawyer experienced in federal and state gun law cases.

Further, quit blaming a federal law, but talking about PA and PICS, which are issues about the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, NOT the "Lautenberg Amendment" and the federal government.

It's simple really, to prove a violation of 18USC922(g)(9), the federal government would need to prove you have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (see post #30 on this thread for more details). The way to prove that is to have a judgement of conviction (aka mittimus) in the records of the court where you were convicted. Absent a court record proving you were convicted of a qualifying MCDV there is no way the federal government can prove you are prohibited under 18USC922(g)(9).

If your lawyer is actually competent and experienced in federal gun laws he should know that.

Milamber
October 28, 2012, 07:43 PM
What I find interesting and must be frustrating for people convicted of DV is the total lack of of forgiveness in the US penal code. How can it be reasonable for a misdemeanor offense to carry a constitutional life penalty. Surely a sentence plus a good behavior period just like drug offenses would be more reasonable. I doubt this will ever be reversed as it is a back door gun control legislation. I see more of its like to come, unfortunately. I would be interested to see a courts view of a civil suit bought before them by a convicted DV who's family were murdered in a home invasion and could arguably been saved by an armed family member.

bushmaster1313
October 28, 2012, 09:23 PM
I would be interested to see a courts view of a civil suit bought before them by a convicted DV who's family were murdered in a home invasion and could arguably been saved by an armed family member.

That is a non-starter.
Who would you sue?

Milamber
October 29, 2012, 07:04 AM
Good question? The Government?

livinglife
October 29, 2012, 09:03 AM
While I don't know how the statutes read in PA, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but I find it hard to believe a disorderly conduct charge would meet the federal elements for a prohibiting conviction under 18USC992(g).

Further, if it was a prohibiting conviction under federal law there would need to be a judgement of conviction (aka mittimus) in the court records to prove the conviction actually occurred.

So you are claiming there is no record of conviction in the court records, but if that were true then even if a disorderly conduct conviction in PA met the requirements for a fed prohibition, there is no way to prove the conviction occurred. A police report of the investigation, is not the same as court records proving the conviction.

Now there might be something in PA law the prohibits you, but for the feds they would actually need a certified judgement of conviction from the court to prove the conviction occurred.

An attorney should know this, and I suggest you find a competent attorney experienced in federal and state gun laws and consult with that attorney about your options.

Not sure what your getting at but if you don't believe me here is the proof.
As for competent attorneys, I had several look over this. Rominger was the only one that seemed to really want to help me. He did take my money and then tell me there is nothing that can be done. For what that is worth. Maybe you can look it over and tell me something 3 attorneys couldn't.

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr55/gogoat/CCI10292012_0000.jpg
Here is the disposition that shows that I pleaded down to Disorderly conduct. And if you note at the bottom at the "remarks" it says the witness "my girlfriend at the time" did not want to testify.
http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr55/gogoat/CCI10292012_0003.jpg

Here is the accepted plea from the judge.
http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr55/gogoat/CCI10292012_0004.jpg

Just to let you know these documents were at the police station. Neither the district court or the county court had these documents. These were in a filing cabinet at the local police station.

JERRY
October 29, 2012, 10:51 AM
well Jesse, according to those documents you were not convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, you were convicted of a misdemeanor crime of disorderly conduct. to say youre getting screwed would be putting it mildly.

Midwest
October 29, 2012, 11:01 AM
well Jesse, according to those documents you were not convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, you were convicted of a misdemeanor crime of disorderly conduct. to say youre getting screwed would be putting it mildly.


Yep that is what I see too, "Plead guilty to disorderly conduct" . It doesn't say 'domestic violence'.

JERRY
October 29, 2012, 11:04 AM
on the gun buying federal form it specifically asks if youve ever been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, to that it would be no as well.

livinglife
October 29, 2012, 11:34 AM
Pennsylvania had no "domestic violence" crime per-say until Dec. of 1990. That was after my conviction. So when the State police look at your conviction they look at what the circumstances were. Since my disorderly conduct was associated with a girl friend at the time this is considered domestic violence charge. This is spelled out in the PA Crimes Code Title 18.

18 U.S.C.
922(d)(9), and prohibits a person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence from shipping or transporting or receiving any firearm or ammunition, 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(9). Section 921(a)(23) of the GCA defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,"
in pertinent part, as "[a]n offense that . . . (1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and . .
. (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force . . . committed by a current or
former spouse . . . ." 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(23)(A). 12 C.F.R. 178.11 states a nearly identical
definition.

livinglife
October 29, 2012, 11:47 AM
If your into law read this mess of an appeal. The judges reversed themselves several times. I don't think most judges understand the law completely.

http://www.romingerlegal.com/pacaselaw/commonwealth1/1247CD02_9-8-03.html

comitatus1
October 29, 2012, 12:44 PM
Even though the defendant was not convicted of 'domestic violence' per se, the majority of the judges seemed satisfied that the circumstances of the case presented a clear case of domestic violence and they ruled accordingly. Even the dissenting judge did not disagree on this point. His dissent was only that the Sheriff should have had the authority to perform the investigation rather than the PSP.

It is a shame that a moment of [somewhat] youthful recklessness has brought the defendant to this point, but assaulting a female is a serious matter.?

Should there be a mechanism to regain one's right to own a firearm? Maybe so. But that is a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.

Chris

DMF
October 29, 2012, 01:58 PM
As I said before, your complaint isn't really with the feds, but rather the Commonwealth of PA.

I don't know any Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA, aka federal prosecutor) who would prosecute a 922(g)(9) case if the court where the alleged conviction occurred could not provide a certified copy of the judgement of conviction (aka mittimus) to prove the alleged prohibiting conviction.

However, the Commonwealth of PA seems content to deny you through the PICS system based on a record at a local police station.

Again, without knowing the elements of the crime for disorderly conduct in PA, it's possible the elements would meet the requirements to be prohibiting under federal law depending on the relationship of the victim and suspect, although in the states where I've worked usually a disorderly conduct charge does not meet that standard.

Find a better attorney, and see if you can get ATF to provide an answer as to whether or not you're prohibited by federal law based on the conviction, and/or the lack of a court record for the conviction.

The problem is, it was a domestic violence case that resulted in a conviction, and you have said you were in fact convicted. Whether or not the federal government could prove that to sustain a 18USC922(g)(9) conviction, due to the lack of court records, if in fact it is a prohibiting conviction, you would have to lie on the 4473 to pass the PICS and/or NICS check.

JERRY
October 30, 2012, 09:21 AM
in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge.

livinglife
October 30, 2012, 10:20 AM
in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge.

If the Lautenberg amendment was in affect when this happened, "1990" I would have asked for a trial, knowing that my girl friend didn't want to press charges. Also I don't think she would have wanted a jury or judge to know the reason behind the skirmish was the fact I came home to find her screwing a guy. I think a good attorney could turn it around to make her look like she deserved what happened.

Frank Ettin
October 30, 2012, 11:30 AM
in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge. In most jurisdictions, a no-contest plea is considered the same as a guilty plea for most purposes.

JERRY
October 30, 2012, 11:47 AM
yes but a no contest plea allows for first offender status and setting aside the conviction after a period of time.

Zoogster
October 30, 2012, 02:39 PM
It actually can be even worse.

Some states do not require someone even be given the option of a jury trial for misdemeanors.

In United States v. Jardee they determined that your firearm rights mean so little that the permanent lifetime loss of them is not a big enough deal to turn an otherwise petty offense into a serious one requiring access to a jury trial.



So a right that 'Shall not be infringed' and only right that specifically gives a right to an exact type of possession in the entire Bill of Rights, is not a big enough deal to even require a jury.




Commitatus1 quoted:

but assaulting a female is a serious matter.?

But that is not what the law addresses even if that is the layman assumption. I can walk up and punch your wife/girlfriend in the face, and it is a minor offense. However if I grab my own by the wrists to stop a violent tantrum where they are breaking or throwing things, that may be a serious domestic violence offense.
So it has nothing to do with gender.
It is not because they are women (half of domestic violence victims are men, they just are injured less and it is often unreported and less often prosecuted), or the seriousness of the assault, but rather the relationship to who is assaulted that is addressed.

Frank Ettin
October 30, 2012, 02:49 PM
yes but a no contest plea allows for first offender status and setting aside the conviction after a period of time. Care to provide some citations? And is it your contention that is universally the case?

JERRY
October 30, 2012, 09:11 PM
Im not sure what you mean by citations but in georgia a first offense domestic violence charge where the victim doesnt want to press to prosecute and there is no sunstancial injury, the offender can ask for and usually gets first offender status (if victim agrees, or refuses to testify),; resulting in a fine, anger management and substance abuse classes if booze or drugs were involved.....upon completion of the classes and payment of the fine before one year has passed, the charge is dropped.

Still shows an arrest on the cch but the charge will be "nol pros". no this is not universal.

If you need i will look up the anotated code of georgia for this and copy it here later when i have the time. start with this: O.C.G.A. 42-8-60

Frank Ettin
October 30, 2012, 09:22 PM
Im not sure what you mean by citations but in georgia a first offense domestic violence charge where the victim doesnt want to press to prosecute and there is no sunstancial injury, the offender can ask for and usually gets first offender status...If this is something in Georgia, what does it have to do with livinglife's situation? He is apparently a resident of Pennsylvania. And what does it have to do with disqualification from gun possession under federal law (18 USC 922(g)(9))?

JERRY
October 30, 2012, 09:29 PM
as i understand it he is not a prohibited person by federal law.

Frank Ettin
October 30, 2012, 09:51 PM
...as i understand it he is not a prohibited person by federal law....That might perhaps be true -- but only in Georgia and only if some very specific and narrow conditions have been met:...in georgia a first offense domestic violence charge where the victim doesnt want to press to prosecute and there is no sunstancial injury, the offender can ask for and usually gets first offender status (if victim agrees, or refuses to testify),; resulting in a fine, anger management and substance abuse classes if booze or drugs were involved.....upon completion of the classes and payment of the fine before one year has passed, the charge is dropped.

Still shows an arrest on the cch but the charge will be "nol pros". no this is not universal.... And it certainly wouldn't have anything to do with livinglife and his situation.

So the statement in post 55:in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge.and the statement in post 58: yes but a no contest plea allows for first offender status and setting aside the conviction after a period of time.weren't applicable or helpful to livinglife, nor were they necessary strictly accurate or broadly applicable in various State.

And my point is that we should all try to be both accurate and relevant when discussing legal options.

livinglife
November 1, 2012, 09:15 AM
Ok I will try this a different way.

Has anyone heard about the SF sheriff that was convicted of domestic violence, but was still able to keep his job and gun rights? He grabbed and bruised his wife's arm and did not let her leave there apartment.

Here is a link to the story.
http://news.yahoo.com/sf-sheriff-no-conflicts-domestic-violence-case-200434394.html

This is a federal law so state and local laws can not overturn them, or a state could not put into place a law that overrides the federal law.

So now couldn't it be argued in any court that since the law is not being enforced equally that it is void. The Supreme Court has the words "Equal Justice For All" engraved on it. Does that not stand for something anymore? I would think that the Fourteenth Amendment protects us from having laws enforced differently. This is only a short step to Anarchy.

This reminds me of a saying I read somewhere that went something like this:

We do not have the rule of law. We have the rule of selective enforcement of the law. By passing more laws than can be enforced, we make everyone a criminal and then enforce, only the laws that promote our agenda and collect fees or taxes. If we pass enough laws we can exert total control over all citizens.

rdawgy
January 23, 2013, 12:59 AM
So one person gets a special deal - so what. You are ignoring the big picture. Misdemeanor crimes should not result in a lifetime ban on guns.

The second amendment is as necessary as the first amendment. Are we going to take someone's first amendments rights away for domestic violence crimes (such as issuing threats) or any other crime? Of course not.

If you want to look at how the law is not enforced equally, look at the conviction of women of domestic violence and men and who lost their gun rights. I would have to guess that 80% of the men are convicted of domestic violence crime whereas women start at least 50% of the domestic violence incidents.

Where was the NRA on this?

I have worked in law for over 25 years and I have all the legal research tools available. I would be interested in working with anyone who would like to get this monstrosity overturned.

RatDrall
January 23, 2013, 07:59 AM
Should there be a mechanism to regain one's right to own a firearm? Maybe so.

There is, it's written into the Federal law. It remains unfunded however, so there is no way out for people who find themselves Prohibited.

getlost
January 28, 2013, 10:45 PM
Well maybe $5000, $10000 or $20000 fee for reinstatement can get them the funding they need.
After the mandatory 5 or 10 year period ban period.

The funds could also go to programs to support domestic violence victims and their families.

64 jeep
February 7, 2013, 01:16 PM
Hi everyone.
Time to write your elected Congressman, and Senator. The squeaky wheel gets greased.
Copy and paste this letter.

I request you to pass legislation to Repeal the Lautenberg Amendment
(section section 658 of Public Law 104-208 ) that Bill Clinton signed into
law back in 1996. It serves no purpose other than to create very thin and
questionable criteria to permanently ban citizens from their "Right to
Keep and Bear Arms".
Soldiers, police officers, and anyone who has been judged to have
committed a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence has incurred a lifetime
ban to own or possess firearms.
As you know, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence need not involved a
physical crime, but a mere verbal exchange, with the punishment sometimes
being only a $10 fine. In many metro areas, a second phone call to a
house over a family altercation will result in the standard police
procedure of automatically arresting the male occupant, regardless of who
is at fault or whether any threats were made.
Just as bad, this legislation associates gun owners with "wife beaters" as
if the two are some how linked, which they are not. It is an intentional
slander to law abiding citizens, a breach of Constitutional freedoms, and a
hindrance to our military and law enforcement services. Many soldiers and
police officers have lost their jobs over their legal ban on carrying
weapons because of this dishonest law.
And I won't even bother going into its unconstitutional ex-post-facto
characteristics. Next all Misdemeanor convictions will result in a lifetime gun ban.
If a Convicted Felon can have gun rights restore a person with a Misdemeanor conviction should have the same opportunity.

Please work to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment.

livinglife
February 7, 2013, 02:51 PM
I have written all of my state and federal representatives. I have written NRA, Oath Keepers, GOA and many others. Besides Oath Keepers and GOA no one else I have written considers this important or consider it a political hot potato no one once to touch for fear of loosing their next election. But I keep writing........and letting everyone I know about this total BS law.

DMF
February 7, 2013, 11:59 PM
Should there be a mechanism to regain one's right to own a firearm? Maybe so.
There is, it's written into the Federal law. It remains unfunded however, so there is no way out for people who find themselves Prohibited.There are many mechanisms for relief from a firearms disability. A grant of relief by ATF was just one way of many, and yes that has been stopped by Congress since 1992, but there are other avenues to seek relief.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf

"8. I have been convicted of a felony. How do I reinstate my rights to possess a firearm?

Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored are not considered convicted under section 922(g)(1), unless that person was expressly prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from possessing firearms. Persons convicted of a State offense should contact the State Attorney General’s Office in the State in which they reside and the State of the conviction for information concerning State and local firearms restrictions, and any alternatives that may be available, such as a gubernatorial pardon or civil rights restoration.
If your conviction is for a Federal offense, you would regain the ability to lawfully receive, possess, or transport firearms if you receive a Presidential pardon. You can find additional information about such pardons by contacting the Office of the Pardon Attorney online at www.usdoj.gov/pardon/.
The GCA includes a provision that gives ATF authority to grant relief from Federal firearms disabilities. 18 U.S.C. 925(c). However, since 1992, ATF’s annual Congressional appropriation has prohibited ATF from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon such applications for relief."

HorseSoldier
February 8, 2013, 12:47 AM
Time to write your elected Congressman, and Senator. The squeaky wheel gets greased.
Copy and paste this letter.

Attacking Lautenberg by downplaying the seriousness of domestic violence is not a strategem that is likely to get much traction.

I think a more viable attack on Lautenberg would go after it from other angles:

A) As was noted up thread, Lautenberg, like the death penalty, is not evenly applied. In those borderline kind of DV situations where the crime is pretty minor, poor persons are more likely to have DV criminal convictions than those who can afford decent lawyers. (i.e. Lautenberg is prejudiced against the poor and against minorities who are likely to receive harsher sentences than white Americans for the same offense)

B) DV households can be a back and forth situation and occasionally the circumstances on the ground are understood at the time by law enforcement such that a person who is normally a victim may be found to be the aggressor in one isolated incident. That person also loses their firearms rights forever, even if they may be subsequently stalked and pursued by a violent partner. (i.e. Lautenberg has the potential to make make women victims, despite its core intent)

C) -- And this is a kind of specialized one, but our military is large enough that it effects a lot of people -- Because Lautenberg is this cast iron kicker for military service, it sometimes actually encourages abused partners of service members not to report domestic violence, because if they report it the household's primary source of income is gone. From what I've seen, it also can encourage chains of command to pressure abused spouses to not report or even cover up DV crimes. (i.e. again, unintended consequences.)

Arguing Lautenberg from a standpoint that can be bumper-stickered down to "c'mon, he just smacked her around a little" isn't going to play well -- and that's how it's going to be distilled by the opponents of its repeal.

livinglife
February 8, 2013, 08:48 AM
There are many mechanisms for relief from a firearms disability. A grant of relief by ATF was just one way of many, and yes that has been stopped by Congress since 1992, but there are other avenues to seek relief.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry...top-10-qas.pdf

"8. I have been convicted of a felony. How do I reinstate my rights to possess a firearm?

Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored are not considered convicted under section 922(g)(1), unless that person was expressly prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from possessing firearms. Persons convicted of a State offense should contact the State Attorney General’s Office in the State in which they reside and the State of the conviction for information concerning State and local firearms restrictions, and any alternatives that may be available, such as a gubernatorial pardon or civil rights restoration.
If your conviction is for a Federal offense, you would regain the ability to lawfully receive, possess, or transport firearms if you receive a Presidential pardon. You can find additional information about such pardons by contacting the Office of the Pardon Attorney online at www.usdoj.gov/pardon/.
The GCA includes a provision that gives ATF authority to grant relief from Federal firearms disabilities. 18 U.S.C. 925(c). However, since 1992, ATF’s annual Congressional appropriation has prohibited ATF from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon such applications for relief."
__________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather, Barry Goldwater

This is false. If your a felon you can, under certain circumstances get your 2A restored but if you have a misdemeanor DV you can not. Only way to restore your rights is with a pardon. I know first hand. I have spent thousands of dollars trying.

livinglife
February 8, 2013, 09:01 AM
Attacking Lautenberg by downplaying the seriousness of domestic violence is not a strategem that is likely to get much traction.

I think a more viable attack on Lautenberg would go after it from other angles:

A) As was noted up thread, Lautenberg, like the death penalty, is not evenly applied. In those borderline kind of DV situations where the crime is pretty minor, poor persons are more likely to have DV criminal convictions than those who can afford decent lawyers. (i.e. Lautenberg is prejudiced against the poor and against minorities who are likely to receive harsher sentences than white Americans for the same offense)

B) DV households can be a back and forth situation and occasionally the circumstances on the ground are understood at the time by law enforcement such that a person who is normally a victim may be found to be the aggressor in one isolated incident. That person also loses their firearms rights forever, even if they may be subsequently stalked and pursued by a violent partner. (i.e. Lautenberg has the potential to make make women victims, despite its core intent)

C) -- And this is a kind of specialized one, but our military is large enough that it effects a lot of people -- Because Lautenberg is this cast iron kicker for military service, it sometimes actually encourages abused partners of service members not to report domestic violence, because if they report it the household's primary source of income is gone. From what I've seen, it also can encourage chains of command to pressure abused spouses to not report or even cover up DV crimes. (i.e. again, unintended consequences.)

Arguing Lautenberg from a standpoint that can be bumper-stickered down to "c'mon, he just smacked her around a little" isn't going to play well -- and that's how it's going to be distilled by the opponents of its repeal.
HorseSoldier is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message

No matter how you want to fight it, it really doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional period. It was applied ex post facto in many cases, which is unconstitutional, it violates 2A directly, we are guaranteed the right to bear arms, and it is applied with prejudice, men are the target not woman.
This law was sold on the premiss that it would protect woman, however facts show that domestic violence rarely have a firearm involved. Physical, pushing, hitting, punching, stabbings, are the main cause of injury and death in DV cases.
If the public would pull their head out of the sand, step back and look at the authors of the law, you can see quite easily that the law was a form of gun control, nothing else. They simply use woman as a selling point.

Frank Ettin
February 8, 2013, 11:39 AM
No matter how you want to fight it, it really doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional period. It was applied ex post facto in many cases, which is unconstitutional, it violates 2A directly,...In your opinion, which really doesn't count. So far your views have not been accepted by the courts which have looked at the matter.

If you enjoyed reading about "Any post Heller case address Lautenberg Amendment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!