DOD policy re: domestic violence conviction and military issued weapons

[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........

 

[SapperLeader]

Ok, this is is interesting,

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]

Lautenberg and the military...

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". 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]

Ladybug, the distinction is between...

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.

 

[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