Skip to comments.
THE MISDEMEANOR GUN BAN (How did this happen????)
GunLaws.com ^
| Alan Korwin
Posted on 01/21/2003 11:07:50 AM PST by SunStar
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Does everyone on FR know about the "THE LAUTENBERG DOMESTIC CONFISCATION LAW", a Federal law passed in 1996 which bans gun ownership for life (including military and police) for ANY misdemeanor conviction???? (WTF??)
1
posted on
01/21/2003 11:07:50 AM PST
by
SunStar
To: SunStar
THE LAUTENBERG DOMESTIC CONFISCATION LAW
WHAT DOES THE LAUTENBERG LAW DO?
The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision was signed into law on September 30, 1996, as section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. It adds to the list of "prohibited persons" persons convicted of a "... misdemeanor involving domestic violence."
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A "PROHIBITED PERSON"?
If you become a prohibited person, you can never again own or acquire a firearm of any type. The only exception is if you are subsequently pardoned or otherwise have your criminal record expunged.
WHAT IS A MISDEMEANOR?
A misdemeanor is a crime carrying a potential penalty of as little as one day in jail, irrespective of whether the person serves actual jail time. In other words, the law imposes a lifetime gun ban on offenses which, in many cases, are very minor in nature.
WHAT TYPE OF MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION WOULD CAUSE ME TO BECOME A "PROHIBITED PERSON"?
The Lautenberg language defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to include a misdemeanor that involves "the use or attempted use of physical force" against a family member. Hence, any actual or attempted violence against a spouse or son or daughter would certainly, if prosecuted successfully as a misdemeanor, subject you to a lifetime gun ban. In many jurisdictions, spanking your kids could result in a conviction which would prohibit you from ever again owning a firearm.
WOULD THE MISDEMEANOR HAVE TO INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR ATTEMPTED VIOLENCE?
No. We have seen that a misdemeanor involving violence (however slight) or attempted violence against a spouse, son, or daughter would certainly be covered. But the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" goes on to include "the threatened use of a deadly weapon." Thus, a threat against a family member would also subject the offender to a lifetime gun ban, even if the threat were joking or the person making the threat did not have the wherewithal to carry it out.
DOES THE NEW LAW APPLY TO PAST CRIMES?
Yes. A misdemeanor committed fifty years ago would still subject an individual to a lifetime gun ban, even if he or she has lived a happily married life with the "victim" during the intervening period.
HOW LONG DOES A "PROHIBITED PERSON" HAVE TO TURN IN ALL HIS OR HER FIREARMS?
The law provides for no grace period. Technically, any newly created "prohibited person" is currently in danger of a felony conviction.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
It means that, if you are a "prohibited person" and you are convicted of possessing a firearm, you will be guilty of a felony which could subject you to a $250,000 fine and a ten year prison sentence.
WHAT ABOUT POLICEMEN AND SOLDIERS?
There is no exemption for law enforcement officials or members of the armed services. These persons, if they have been convicted of even minor misdemeanors against their spouses, will have to be disarmed and fired.
WHAT ABOUT BATTERED WOMEN WHO DEFENDED THEMSELVES?
There is no exemption for battered women who received minor misdemeanor convictions after they used force to defend themselves against their battering spouses. There are many battered women who fall into this category. They will now be unable to use firearms to protect themselves against their abusive and threatening husbands, even if they feel that their lives are endangered.
WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW?
Because the law now imposes lifetime gun bans on persons who, in some cases, have engaged in no actual violence or attempted violence, it will only be a matter of time before anti-gun activists try to impose lifetime guns bans in non-domestic situations of minor misdemeanors involving violence (such as fist fights). Ultimately, an effort to impose a lifetime gun ban on all persons convicted of misdemeanors will be made.
2
posted on
01/21/2003 11:08:26 AM PST
by
SunStar
(Democrats Piss Me Off !!)
To: All
3
posted on
01/21/2003 11:09:40 AM PST
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: *bang_list
BANG!
4
posted on
01/21/2003 11:10:09 AM PST
by
SunStar
(Democrats Piss Me Off !!)
To: SunStar
Consider this simply as a:
Law Enforcement Officer Early Retirement Program.
5
posted on
01/21/2003 11:14:05 AM PST
by
Hunble
To: SunStar
Where are the pro-Second Amendment lawyers who will fight this to the Supreme Court?
I have mentioned many times here that we should find pro-Second-Amendment lawyers and file dozens of "frivolous" law suits--invent legal theories just like the libs do. Sue 'em for "conspiracy to deny" constitutional rights.
The goal is not to win. The goal is to lose, and lose, and lose, and lose--but make them worship at the altar of Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation.
File class action lawsuits.
Bankrupt them.
And keep suing until you hit a "friendly" jury--and get a zillion-buck award from Brady et al.
This is the leftist technique; why can't we use it?
6
posted on
01/21/2003 11:16:30 AM PST
by
boris
To: SunStar
Spank your kid, lose your gun. It's a two-fer.
7
posted on
01/21/2003 11:22:53 AM PST
by
Romulus
To: SunStar
Boy it sure will be nice when we have a Republican congress...oh wait...we have one...
To: SunStar
The Lautenberg AmendmentMy first thought on election night regarding this waste of flesh elected again and with the republican majority was that they should humiliate this idiot by repealing this crime of a law.
To: SunStar
This sux indeed. But am I reading correctly, that this "new" law is in reality some six years old?
To: SunStar
HAVE MIXED FEELINGS.
I BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AND PROTECTED. I'd even err on the side of the Constitution on this.
HOWEVER,
domestic violence is epidemic. And it IS A VERY SMALL STEP from pushing and shoving IN MANY MEN'S CASES--TO GETTING THE GUN AND BLOWING THE LADY AWAY. It is only a question of degree. And when alcohol is involved, that degree of difference can be traveled in microseconds.
I'm convinced if such a law were followed well, many lives would be saved. I'm not convinced, sadly, that saving those lives is worth trashing the constitution and putting more lives at risk thereby.
11
posted on
01/21/2003 11:44:37 AM PST
by
Quix
(11TH FREEPCARD FINISHED)
To: Quix
domestic violence is epidemic. And it IS A VERY SMALL STEP from pushing and shoving IN MANY MEN'S CASES--TO GETTING THE GUN AND BLOWING THE LADY AWAY. It is only a question of degree. And when alcohol is involved, that degree of difference can be traveled in microseconds. And a federal gun ban on anyone convicted of this will prevent exactly what? Just as the British gun ban has been so effective for preventing crime?
12
posted on
01/21/2003 12:13:02 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
This might be the straw...
...and Operation Exile would enforce it.
13
posted on
01/21/2003 12:58:01 PM PST
by
Maelstrom
(Government Limited to Enumerated Powers is your freedom to do what isn't in the Constitution.)
To: dirtboy
I suspect you read my whole post.
Did you really consider all I said?
Given my experience with couples wherein domestic violence is a problem, I feel from both sexes, taking guns out of the homes of X% of them would mean X less deaths per year. I think that's a fairly self-evident fact.
Most such gun deaths are impulse sorts of things. But where there's a habit of violence and especially with alcohol, the step to adding a gun in the moment of anger is an easy one to take for many, many men.
So, yes, it would mean X% less deaths.
The issue for me is--are those lives worth the violation to the Constitution and the risks that entails. I'm skeptical they are though I highly value individual lives. I believe the lives put at risk by violating the Constitution about guns would number greatly more and the risk would be enormously more.
But if it's your mother/dad/son/daughter that gets shot in a moment of impulsive hostility--you might feel otherwise.
I don't really think these issues are that hard to grasp nor that hard to think through to a point of understanding the basic facts involved. It is an imperical question at one level. But I don't think one experienced in such matters needs a lot of research to clue them in to the critical variables.
Perhaps you've been blessed to have avoided domestic violence in all your family relationships and among all your friends. If so, consider yourself a very rare critter, indeed. Shrinks see a fair amount of it.
And it seems to be getting worse and more common.
I don't like to make decisions in policy or law which needlessly result in additional deaths in families when families are already such an endangered species.
It's just that the Constitution and tyranny issues are SO MUCH MORE CRITICAL for families as well as individuals.
14
posted on
01/21/2003 1:46:45 PM PST
by
Quix
(11TH FREEPCARD FINISHED)
To: SunStar
Congress has exceeded its delegated authority here, even though the intention is a noble one. Congress has surely exceeded its authority - by definition, an ex post facto law is one like this piece of filth which punishes a past act with a more severe penalty than existed when the act was committed.
However, the author is hopelessly naive. There was no noble intention involved in passing this unconstitutional law. Its real intent was not to fight some social evil - that was the excuse - but to find a yet another way to take guns out of the hands of a large number of people permanently, without any hope of regaining the ability to get the guns back. The gun-grabbers don't give a rat's @ss about crime prevention - in fact, they're happier when crime is higher, as it gives them the perfect tool ("crime prevention") with which to enact further violations of our rights.
Remember, folks:
GUN CONTROL ISN'T ABOUT GUNS, ITS ABOUT CONTROL
To: Quix
I don't like to make decisions in policy or law which needlessly result in additional deaths in families when families are already such an endangered species. Of course, the gun-grabbers use the exact same logic - as long as kids are dying from gun accidents, we need more gun control. I know your intentions are good, but realize that such intentions are the paving material for a certain road...
16
posted on
01/21/2003 1:52:13 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: Quix
Most such gun deaths are impulse sorts of things. But where there's a habit of violence and especially with alcohol, the step to adding a gun in the moment of anger is an easy one to take for many, many men. So, yes, it would mean X% less deaths. The point is, this law would prohibit ANYONE with a misdemeanor DV assault charge from ever again legally owning a gun without a pardon. I think the entire federal law regarding banning gun ownership for ANYONE is illegal - because it is a penalty imposed by the feds for state crimes. There is no due process, just a sanction of rights separate from the sentence imposed by the state.
17
posted on
01/21/2003 1:59:04 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: dirtboy
All good points.
Thanks for your kind replies.
18
posted on
01/21/2003 4:16:04 PM PST
by
Quix
(11TH FREEPCARD FINISHED)
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: dirtboy
I hope you noticed that even at that, I STILL came down on the side of the Constitution.
I'm NOT in favor of gun control.
Problems with guns as well as with most every other social AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ill begin with poor to nonexistent parenting--especially poor to mangled to nonexistent ATTACHMENT ages 1-5. FATHERS especially need to learn to be nonsexually affectionate enormously more in degree, quality and quanitity than is common--to all their kids all their lives and especially the first 5-6 years.
And in terms of their spouses--They'd get a lot further sexually if they dished out a LOT MORE nonsexual affection without any expectations in return.
Anyway--wanted to note I was expressing tornness about the issue while still coming down on the side of the Constitution and individuals owning guns. I tend to agree about absolute bans forever.
However, you may be unaware that violence; chronic pathological anger etc. does not tend to get better for many people even with extensive treatment. That's a complex topic but there's alarming truth there.
If you have a sister etc. married to a violent man--99.9% of the time, the only recourse is divorce.
20
posted on
01/21/2003 4:25:09 PM PST
by
Quix
(11TH FREEPCARD FINISHED)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson