Posted on 01/20/2009 1:31:06 PM PST by neverdem
Edited on 01/20/2009 1:33:03 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
CHEYENNE -- A bill that would require Wyoming judges to warn defendants that they would lose their federal gun rights by pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges received preliminary approval in the state Senate on Monday.
The Senate unanimously approved Senate File 70, sponsored by Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander. The bill would also classify misdemeanor domestic violence as a serious offense requiring defendants to have lawyers.
(Excerpt) Read more at casperstartribune.net ...
That's true. However, the story uses misdemeanor and domestic violence. I am confused... is DV a felony? If so, why is misdemeanor even mentioned?
Lautenberg Amendment perhaps?
Or one like it in that state?
You can google “Lautenberg Amendment”, or go to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
The Lautenberg Amendment was an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968. It expanded the group of firearm prohibited persons to those who have ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The effect is to make it a felony for anyone with any DV conviction to own or even handle any firearm or ammunition. It does not matter if the DV conviction occurred before the 1996 enactment of the Lautenberg Amendment.
The impact on those in the military is particularly significant. There is no exception for those in the military during the scope of their official duties.
Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons.
That's what I needed to know, thanks.
I think you lose them if someone gets a restraining order too.
That's true. It's usually the first thing the "other" lawyer does in a divorce case.
Crofts said people commonly plead guilty thinking that they can pay a small fine and put an incident behind them without realizing that they face the loss of their gun rights.
"There's a dynamic; these kids don't know what they're getting involved in," Crofts said. He said that he believes justice is best served when a defendant has a defense lawyer.
That says it best. Now while I have no use for men who hit women whatsoever, everybody deserves a fair trial, and not everybody is guilty. Anyone accused of any misdemeanor or felony needs to know and understand the consequences of what happens if he is found guilty and needs to use their rights to remain silent and lawyer up.
That is what bothers me the most about that. Guilty till proven innocent.
Don't know how it is elsewhere but I know that here in the Gay State you lose your rights (temporarily,I think) if there's a restraining order against you.I know this because it happened to a cop,whose old man (the police chief) lived a couple of doors down from me.The son had a habit of using his girlfriends as punching bags and had his service revolver taken away,under state law,when she got a restraining order.He eventually got it back (thanks to Daddy).
The question in my mind is can you lose your rights *permanently* for anything less than a felony conviction (or a psychiatric diagnosis).
I believe under Lautenberg the loss of rights for "domestic violence" is permanent.
In truth I go farther than that. Anyone who has been convicted of any offense, and has served their time, still has the right to keep and bear arms, even though the government will illegitimately infringe upon it.
The government may legitimately revoke rights when someone is convicted of a felony, subject to certain restrictions. If lifetime disarmament was provided for by the legislature as the punishment for a particular crime, such punishment is legitimate. That does not imply that the federal government has any authority to impose lifetime disarmament as a punishment for state crimes, but I see no reason states lack the authority to punish their own crimes with RKBA forfeiture.
That's why gun owning men are learning to strike first whenever the big D rolls around.
Selling your entire gun collection to a close friend for one dollar also keeps you out of trouble.
Big Brother's new target: Tracking of all firearms
A better weapon - Guns on campus would pose greater danger
A Theology of Hunting: Why God Loves Hunting & Hunters
Ad, Postings Urge Gun Purchases On Inauguration Day - Group Pushes For "National Buy A Gun Day"
As a part of sentencing for specific crimes, I agree.
But GCA just said here’s a new penalty - it’s a giant blanket and we’re going to throw it over everybody, past and future.
IIRC (it was a long time ago and I was just a kid then) the whole thing was a reaction to the RFK (and perhaps MLK) killing, and it was marketed as a ban on mail order gun sales.
The Lautenberg Amendment had this ex post facto feature, not the GCA of 1968.
IIRC (it was a long time ago and I was just a kid then) the whole thing was a reaction to the RFK (and perhaps MLK) killing, and it was marketed as a ban on mail order gun sales.
The gun control impulse started with JFK's assassination. Lee Harvey Oswald used a mail order rifle. NYC required registration of long guns in 64 or 65. Growing crime and urban riots in the 60s also fed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.