Lautenberg Amendment

Go back and look at all the cases holding that the right can be regulated.
Click to expand...
Most of those cases were before the Heller decision. Now that we have an acknowledgement that the RKBA is an enumerated, individual right, we can reexamine those cases.

Guys...OJ Simpson? Let's not go there, or I will put on my Kato Kaelin wig. It won't be a pretty picture.
 
Yes, there are millions who insist on having their rights respected. Then there are those that don't understand that there are other rights and the rights of all need to be respected.

Presuming innocence until proof of guilt is made after due process doesn't mean ignoring the plights of female, and sometimes male, DV victims
Click to expand...

Nobody said it did. The law is a constant balancing act juggling the rights of all concerned. The problem with Lautenberg it's WAY out of balance to an unprecedented degree.

Ar you even aware about the domestic violence calls about OJ before he killed Nicole? I don't know what the law is/was in Cali then, but I believe some states mandate that the police arrest someone on a DV call.
Click to expand...

If you have a relevant point to make involving OJ, make it. I certainly have no intention of defending him.

Mandating an arrest is an excellent example of how out of balance things are.
 
I want to see the wig. OJ is just a celebrity example of one aspect of the DV problem - which I think has improved. LEOs are inclined to give a husband a pass. The there is the endemic problem with the entire criminal justice system, which is to let someone that should be prosecuted for a felony off with a misdemeanor, if that.
 
The relevant point involving OJ is clear to anyone who cares to look. I also think Lautenberg needs to be reigned in to some degree. There are violent DV misdemeanor acts and then there are the really violent ones. I believe there was a recent decision in Kentucky or someplace holding something along those lines.

Regardless. It may infringe on the 2A but it is not ex post facto. I amm not going to waste time trying to convince you when others have laid it our for you and you don't agree with them.

I think mandating an arrest is going too far and the officers should have some discretion when, following strict guidelines, they can determine not to arrest anyone. After all, they may not have enough evidence to find that either committed a crime.
 
Dreaming100Straight said:
...It may infringe on the 2A but it is not ex post facto....
Click to expand...
And that is the bottom line. The Lautenberg Amendment needs to be challenged on grounds that have some decent prospect of being successful. The ex post facto argument is pretty much a dead end and a waste of time. Concentrate on arguments that could work.
 
ah yes, the only misdemeanor that takes away a constitutional right (without even needing to have a physical assault occur).
 
The recent decision I mentioned on Lautenburg may have been United States v. Castleman (2014), which challenged the application of the law to misdemeanor convictions which did not involve "the use or attempted use of physical force". In a 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that Castleman's conviction of "misdemeanor domestic assault" did qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under Tennessee state law. Specifically holding that the ""physical force" requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction — namely, offensive touching", thereby preventing him from possession of firearms.
 
Last edited:
This thread has been an enlightening thread for me, with some pretty scholarly explanations. Just thought I'd mention this.
 
Does this apply if the conviction has been expunged? I ask because I just heard of this story about San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi:
Sheriff’s Department officials strongly denied Thursday night that the sergeant had been transferred because he potentially stood in the way of Mirkarimi’s being granted permission to carry a gun. They described his transfer as a budgetary move and said Mirkarimi had nothing to do with it.

For much of his term as sheriff, Mirkarimi was on criminal probation after pleading guilty in 2012 to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment stemming from an incident in which he bruised his wife’s arm during an argument.

In April, Mirkarimi had the conviction expunged after he completed his probation. Left unresolved was whether he could carry a gun on duty.
Click to expand...

Far be it for me to have schadenfreud over an anti-gun sheriff potentially being banned himself from possessing a firearm... ;)
 
In a hypothetical case, if the husband and wife have a very acerbic argument and the law is called by other well meaning, but nosy persons to investigate, but no evidence of physical violence is found and no arrests are made, but LE retains a permanent record of the call and investigation, does Lautenberg still apply?
 
gyvel, Lautenberg requires a conviction to be applied. A conviction anytime in history, for a DV crime where the possible sentence is one year or more.

Lautenberg does not care what the actual sentence given was. It does not matter when in time the conviction occurred, last week or 50 years ago all the same to the law. (guilty plea = conviction)

Now, I am uncertain what is proper for a conviction that is later expunged. There is no judgment, and no ruling, no place for you to argue about whether it is appropriate. Lautenberg is automatic. Upon conviction, you ARE a prohibited person, henceforth, forever more.

there may be a legal avenue to see restoration of rights, but I am not qualified to speak to what that might specifically be. If you need to know, paying for qualified legal advice is the best way to get it.
 
gyvel, Lautenberg requires a conviction to be applied. A conviction anytime in history, for a DV crime where the possible sentence is one year or more.
Click to expand...

I think not. Conviction of a misdemeanor crime of DV makes one prohibited and a misdemeanor crime is one punishable by up to a year imprisonment. More than a year is a felony.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

922 (d)(1) talks about felonies, while (d)(9) specifies misdemeanor DV convictions.

44AMP is correct that Lautenberg only applies to DV if their is a conviction. As to the effect of an expungement, I don't know. One memo found on google says it would still apply to gun rights, but that writer may be wrong. I fear, after looking at something from Chuck Michel's law firm and a something else regarding expungment of a Wyoming DV conviction, that one still is prohibited under Federal law.
 
Last edited:
Dreaming100Straight said:
I think not. Conviction of a misdemeanor crime of DV makes one prohibited and a misdemeanor crime is one punishable by up to a year imprisonment. More than a year is a felony.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Remember, we have fifty states, plus the District of Columbia. Each state has its own laws, its own definitions, and its own classification system.
 
Not necessarily. Remember, we have fifty states, plus the District of Columbia. Each state has its own laws, its own definitions, and its own classification system.
Click to expand...

True. What I said about one year is the rule in most jurisdictions. I was more concerned with pointing out that Lautenberg applied to misdemeanor DV than whether or not a particular jurisdiction considered a crime to be a misdemeanor or a felony.
 
Dreaming100Straight said:
Not necessarily. Remember, we have fifty states, plus the District of Columbia. Each state has its own laws, its own definitions, and its own classification system.
Click to expand...
True. What I said about one year is the rule in most jurisdictions. I was more concerned with pointing out that Lautenberg applied to misdemeanor DV than whether or not a particular jurisdiction considered a crime to be a misdemeanor or a felony.
Click to expand...
That's not what you wrote.

ALL felonies are disqualifiers. Lautenberg makes any conviction for a DV misdemeanor a disqualifier if the possible sentence is more than one year. You cited a federal law, but virtually all DV prosecutions will be under the laws of one of the states, and I don't think it's correct to say that in "most" states anything with a possible sentence of more than one year is a felony. If that were true we wouldn't be so concerned about Lautenberg.
 
ah yes, the only misdemeanor that takes away a constitutional right (without even needing to have a physical assault occur).
Click to expand...

I believe the same is true with certain drug use. For example, on form 4473 you are disqualified, at least for a period, if you are "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Small use of many of these drugs is a misdemeanor, and this doesn't even require a conviction, just a self admission. In addition, the term "user" is undefined and very vague. Does this include a person who takes a puff or pill once a month, or once a year, or ever in your life? At what point are you no longer a "user". Does taking a drink once a month make you a "drinker", or having a cigarette once a year make you a "smoker"?

Taking away or seriously restricting constitutional rights is a serious matter and deserves clear guidelines that we can all understand.

Tom
 
"I don't think it's correct to say that in "most" states anything with a possible sentence of more than one year is a felony. If that were true we wouldn't be so concerned about Lautenberg."

Look it up.
 
I believe the same is true with certain drug use. For example, on form 4473 you are disqualified, at least for a period, if you are "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Small use of many of these drugs is a misdemeanor, and this doesn't even require a conviction, just a self admission. In addition, the term "user" is undefined and very vague. Does this include a person who takes a puff or pill once a month, or once a year, or ever in your life? At what point are you no longer a "user". Does taking a drink once a month make you a "drinker", or having a cigarette once a year make you a "smoker"?

Taking away or seriously restricting constitutional rights is a serious matter and deserves clear guidelines that we can all understand.

Tom
Click to expand...

nope, it doesn't matter if you were convicted of possession of marijuana less than one ounce, or even a D.U.I. because of marijuana in your system. those past convictions are not disqualifiers because they are past tense.

you "were" an unlawful user..... you "use to be" addicted......
 
I believe the same is true with certain drug use. For example, on form 4473 you are disqualified, at least for a period, if you are "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Small use of many of these drugs is a misdemeanor, and this doesn't even require a conviction, just a self admission.
Click to expand...

If you have a medical marijuana card for "legal" marijuana, you can't buy a gun. It may be "legal" at the state level, but the 4473 is a federal form and marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.
Taking away or seriously restricting constitutional rights is a serious matter and deserves clear guidelines that we can all understand.
Click to expand...

You and I agree that it's a serious matter, but the current trend is to make it as easy as possible to disqualify as many people as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top