1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Lautenberg Amendment

Discussion in 'Legal' started by 64 jeep, Feb 7, 2013.

  1. 64 jeep

    64 jeep New Member

    Hi everyone.
    I see many of you are as concerned about this amendment as I am.
    Time to write your elected Congressman, and Senators. I already have. The squeaky wheel gets greased.
    Feel free to 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
    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.
  2. locnload

    locnload Well-Known Member

    Jeep, while I agree completely, I suspect that in todays climate, this will get nowhere. They will say things like "we need to be tightening laws on who can get guns, not adding wife beaters to the rolls of legal buyers".

    Maybe if the same restrictions on gun ownership were extended to serving in elected or appointed public office, the political hacks would be a little more careful about the laws they dream up. Misdemeanor Domestic Abuse, sorry Senator, go get a job in the private sector. Convicted of corruption and bribery, no you can not say your sorry and run for another office. :D
  3. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    You will find no love for the Lautenberg Amendment here.

    But do you think this is the right time for this fight, with the .gov currently trying to get new legislation through?
  4. JERRY

    JERRY Well-Known Member

    its the only misdemeanor that strips away your 2nd amendment rights.
  5. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

  6. Still Shooting

    Still Shooting Well-Known Member

    I have an ex-wife who over 11 years siphoned off $50K from our joint accounts, and intercepted/cashed 2 checks for $10K each issued to me from my father's estate. She had hidden the money away in personal accounts I wasn't supposed to discover, but I did. I left her on account of this, and other similar actions. She filed 2 bogus Petitions for Incarceration based on New Jersey's errors in posting my child support payments, and lies she told about my payments for our daughter's health insurance. She filed 9 more Petitions claiming I owed her money, all dismissed when I produced documents to the contrary, including some written in her own hand. She kept the divorce proceeding going for 3 years. If this law had been in effect at the time, I have NO DOUBT that Her Vindictive Highness would have claimed some form of domestic abuse, only to deprive me of my firearms for the rest of my life.

    Any of us who are married could face the same situation in the event the marriage "comes apart". Bad Law!
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    Right. Nobody likes it. I had to tread lightly in my divorce. We get it. But......NOW?
  8. Milamber

    Milamber Well-Known Member

    I don't see why not now. We need to fight for the second amendment to stand for and be interpreted as it was written. Shall not be infringed. I see no creveats.

    This amendment makes a victim of everyone convicted of this ludicrous misdemeanor. If the cops feel it was a physical assault or threat that would warrant removing firearms from the so called aggressor, charge it as a felony.

    You can pick up this lifetime firearm ban for arguing in a parking lot with a girl or boyfriend when you are young dumb and naive. Then never ever see that person again. But not be able to defend your beloved wife and children twenty years latter in a home invasion. This law is heinous and needs repealing. I have copied and sent your letter sir.
  9. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    How's this for a reason why not.

    It could be used as a bargaining chip in the real fight. "We'll ease up on Lautenberg, and give you nationwide reciprocity for CCW, if you will give us universal background checks and capacity limits." See how this works?

    FOCUS. This is the time to hold firm, not to try to out-fox anyone. Lautenberg is a flagrant ex-post-facto law, and vulnerable to challenge as such. BE PATIENT.
  10. Milamber

    Milamber Well-Known Member

    I agree that right now we have to stand firm and say enough. The blighted a have 31 bills in the house saying the same thing in a multitude of different ways.
  11. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

    Trick plays aren't a great idea when the pressure is on. You are more likely to fumble than to win the game.
  12. Milamber

    Milamber Well-Known Member

    Interesting analogy
  13. heyjoe

    heyjoe Well-Known Member

    the best defense is a good offense. we have been knocked back on our heels for long enough. its time for a counter offensive.
  14. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    Since when have we been "knocked back on our heels"? We've had huge victories in the last 20 years. The anti's have been on thier heels, not us. They are grasping at straws.
  15. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Well-Known Member

  16. heyjoe

    heyjoe Well-Known Member

    since Newtown some states and at the federal level,have proposed draconian gun control laws and have or are in the process of passing them in most of those. surely you must have heard something about this gun control push nationwide the last 2 months?
  17. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

    They can "propose" outlawing rainy days for all I care. Only NY has passed such a law, and ,IMO, it will be thrown out as unconstitutional.
    We have made huge strides for the last 20 years and we are not giving them up. I disagree with all these fatalist attitudes that claim we are loosing our rights. They are being threatened, yes, but I'm confident we will win. We are winning.
  18. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    It's a terrifying piece of law that I believe needs to be repealed. And it is VERY effective at disarming people. A nefarious person could even pre-emptively disarm a person through this measure.

    The anti gunners have also looked at expanding this to ANY violent misdemeanor, like a bar fight.

    But it's more than a letter writing campaign.

    Hard cold facts from people screwed over by it are needed. Testimony before congress of how vindictive manipulating people abuse this law for illegitimate gain.
  19. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    Voice of dissent here, fellas. While there may be a minority among those so banned, I'd have a hard time believing that most convicted of domestic violence haven't earned it. In many states, simple acts of physical violence such as punching or kicking are not charged as felonies. It is entirely possible for a man with a severe mean streak, serious self control issues, and a proclivity toward violence to physically dominate, hurt, and abuse his wife any time he's in a bad mood, be known to the police and his neighbors as a serial wife beater and bad sort, amass a list of class A misdemeanor arrests for crimes of violence, and NEVER get a felony charge to his account.

    The problem is, he's clearly demonstrated that he is violent, mean, and bad. He's the last person anyone who knows him would trust with a gun, and it's sad, but when he ends up finally doing felony violence, nobody will be surprised.

    The Lautenberg Amendment is bad policy, IMO, because it is a federal law imposed on states. It would be UNNECESSARY if states were doing the right thing themselves. Yelling at anyone, including a spouse, should be considered rude and poor form, but no crime. DELIBERATELY ASSAULTING AND PHYSICALLY HURTING a spouse should be a felony, and if it were, Lautenberg would be unnecessary.
  20. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Well-Known Member

    Let me say that I blame the states for not enforcing the law on this count. A man who beats his wife when he's drunk needs to be charged with both a felony assault (requires a change in some states' laws) but also with an alcohol offense, which properly adjudicated will constitute a crime of violence AND a history of substance abuse legal offenses.

    Bottom line, crimes of violence and substance abuse indicate a lack of peaceable and sensible self control that OUGHT to preclude gun ownership. This is or ought to be a function of state law, not federal.

Share This Page