I am not a lawyer nor do I practice law. It is always best to get the opinion of a lawyer who practicies law in your state. The Lautenberg Amendment is not universally applied. It only applies if “convicted” and the amendment sets for a spectific condition of convicted:
The definition of ‘convicted’ can be found in the chapter 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) and has exceptions:
(33) (B)
(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction 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 applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
Therefore, if a person was represented by counsel, waived that right, AND, the person was entitled to a trial by jury, but also waived that right, the person shall not be considered to have been convicted if the conviction was expunged or set aside or had his civil rights (to bear arms) restored, UNLESS the further order of the court permanently revokes that right.
I would advise having an lawyer review the case in question and provide an opinion as to the application of the law to your friend. If the law does apply, then work with the attorny to get the conviction expunged.
Possibly a “no contest” or “nolo contendere” plea may have kept his “2nd Amendment rights intact” in the eyes of the court.