An End to the Lautenberg Amendment?

An End to the Lautenberg Amendment?
By Jeff Knox

FirearmsCoalition.org
FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Federal Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit recently accepted the Second Amendment as valid grounds for reversing a conviction under the infamous Lautenberg Amendment, barring possession of firearms from anyone ever convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

That’s good news, but don’t fire up the band just yet.

The actual conclusion of the 7th Circuit panel was that prosecutors had failed to effectively argue that Lautenberg does not violate the Second Amendment – which is a far cry from declaring the law unconstitutional and throwing the case out.  The court reversed the guilty verdict and sent the case back to the lower court to give federal prosecutors another chance to build a better case.  Included in the decision are rather detailed instructions explaining what arguments the prosecution needs to make if they wish to prevail.  Like a child’s game, the court said, “You forgot to say ‘Mother may I’ so try it again – and this time say ‘Mother may I.'” If prosecutors carefully apply the lessons laid out in the 7th Circuit’s order, the case should result in another conviction that would then be upheld on appeal.  On the other hand, the court also dropped a hint or two for the defense.

The case against defendant Steven Skoien, who was sentenced to probation in 2006 for misdemeanor domestic violence, is pretty straightforward.  After being alerted by the game department that Skoien had purchased a deer tag, police went to his home where, in his pickup parked out front, they found a freshly killed deer, a shotgun, and ammunition.  Skoien admitted that he had been hunting that morning.

In court Skoien argued that he only possessed the gun for hunting and that denying him the right to arms was a violation of the Second Amendment.

Prosecutors pointed to a comment made in the Heller opinion to the effect that the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” They argued that this should be recognized to include persons prohibited under Lautenberg, and that the government had a compelling need to restrict guns from domestic violence abusers because such abuse is an indicator for future acts of violence.

The three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit rightly pointed out that a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is not a felon, and concluded that the government’s arguments supporting the assertion of “compelling need” simply weren’t good enough.  The panel also concluded though that since the defendant claimed to only possess the shotgun for the purpose of hunting and did not assert a self-defense argument, his situation did not warrant the full protection of the Second Amendment.

The important issues in this case all hinge on two problematic positions taken by the panel:

  1. That the extraneous comments made in Heller are binding.
  2. That guns possessed for self-defense deserve more protection from the courts than those involving guns possessed for other purposes.

There are three standards a court uses in judging arguments, referred to as levels of scrutiny.  The highest and most rigorous of the three is “strict scrutiny” - applied to issues of fundamental rights – wherein prosecutors must demonstrate a compelling need to interfere with a person’s rights, with minimal interference to meet that compelling need, and prove that the governments action effectively does meet the stated need.  “Intermediate scrutiny” is applied when there is only limited involvement of civil rights and no direct impact on any fundamental rights.  The government is given much more leeway under this standard.  The third, “rational basis” is applied when neither civil nor fundamental rights are at issue.  Under this standard the government has little requirement to prove need or effect.

In the Skoien case, the 7th Circuit concluded that intermediate scrutiny was appropriate because self-defense was not raised as an issue.  They also suggested that if the issue of self-defense had been raised, the court would have to move up to a strict scrutiny standard for reviewing the case.  This conclusion begs anyone wishing to use the Second Amendment as a legal defense to be sure to invoke the right to arms in a self-defense context and suggests that the court has injected the words “for self defense” into the Second Amendment.

If the remanded case is not dismissed, prosecutors will no doubt build a case tailored to the court’s instructions for stricter scrutiny, and the defense will assert that Skoien also possessed the shotgun for self-defense purposes.   Meanwhile, it is to be hoped that the Supreme Court will have rendered a favorable decision in the McDonald v. Chicago case and that that decision will clear up some of the ambiguities surrounding Heller.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA.  Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

  • 49 thoughts on “An End to the Lautenberg Amendment?

    1. The only reason that a lot of people complain about this amendment, is that they are military / law enforcement, they are the most effected.

      These people are the biggest offenders of D. V. and should not have a weapon anywhere near them.

      But as I have learned, these same people think that only they should have weapons.

    2. This law was part of a omnibus finiancial bill, it was attached at the end of a huge piece of legislation which had nothing to do with violence or gun rights. It is unconstitutional on about 5 different points, the most important one being the fact that it is enforced post-exfacto. This is the real dangerous stuff that is going on,, ironically it was passed in 97, 0r 98 yet not enforced to post 9-11, How do I know, I broke a window in 94, plead guilty, paid for the replacement of the window and was informed in 2001 I had to sign over my firearms… I have kind of dropped out since then, I mean why help pay for a illegal war….

    3. Richard everybody is affected not just cops and military, what is next losing your second amendment rights for speeding tickets. Why do you label the police and military as the biggest abusers. Might I remind you that if it werent for our vets that you would have no freedom or any rights for that matter. I agree with what everybody else says you are a liberal.

    4. Tony Gibart a is worried that this case might leave a wrong impression that firearm restrictions imposed on those convicted of domestic violence are somehow different in kind from similar restrictions on felons and those deemed mentally incompetent. The truth is they should be different. The key word here is misdemeanor. They can be trusted to hold public office, to vote and sit on a jury, but they cant own a gun, makes a whole lot of sense. Tony Gibart claims to have all this evidence, that seven victims have been killed with firearms with previous DV convictons. Guess what they still got there hands on guns. Out of all statistics shown I wonder if they ever show any about those being previosly convicted staying out of trouble lets say ten or twenty years, I doubt it because they claim that is goes unreported, and they feel that it give them justification to judge everybody the same. The truth is not everybod with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction comes home on a daily basis and manipulates every aspect of there spouses lives. I wonder if the statistics of those with felony and misdemeanor convictions are separate, if not they should be because they are different classes of offenders. The statistics that are shown are only partial truths. If Skoines crime was severe enough to lose his second amendment rights he should of been charged with a felony he was not, this is a failure of the judges if they are failing to do so. Good people are losing there right to bear arms as something as a silly argument. I know a few women that claim that they are tired of people like tony gibart meddling with there lives over someting as silly as a argument with there spouse. If any type of intervention was required it should have been classified as a felony. Right now it is easier for violent felons to get there second amendment rights restored than those convicted with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. I guess it is okay to take a risk of someone being a menace to an entire society over family issues. To strip one of there rights over what they think he or she might do is purely unconstitutional. To treat felons better that misdemeanants is unconstitutional. The lautenberg goes far beyond domestic violence take this terror watch list for example, they are talking about putting returning veterans from iraq and afgahanistan on it that could strip them of there second amendment rights. This is a slap in the face to our men and woman serving in uniform. Might I remind Tony Gibart that if it werent for our veterans that they would not be able to exercise any right. It is time that the government and people like tony gibart to stop micro managing americans life. They are trying to strip away the second amendment slowly with amendment after amendment. To sentence one for exercising his constitutional right is tyrany. How can one lose a constitutional right when the offense was not severe enough to lose core civil rights. The ex po facto thing has been argued time and time again, how can memebers of congress dare say that losing your god giving constitutional right is not considered punishment. America please wake up.

    5. You have no constitutional right to police protection, another reason why gun control laws do kill. 7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
      On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales’ husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales’ family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one’s individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

      (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
      (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
      (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
      (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
      (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
      (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
      “…a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…” -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

      (7) “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her.”
      Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

      (8) “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
      Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

      New York Times, Washington DC
      Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
      The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

      http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html (http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html)

    6. Ok this law is like all sex offenders to register. I have a friend who was 19 and was dating a girl that was 17. Her parents pressed the charges. So for his whole life he has to be on the sex offenders registry. They need to classify the offenders to the crime. I lost my gun rights due to a misdemeanor DV conviction. I was not aware of what I was losing. I could not afford a lawyer, so like an idiot I took the plea. Yet after taking it I completed a DV offenders class and found out that guy who did more violent actions got diversion agreements. Now that is how how system works…flat out they had lawyers. Now my kids get the blunt of the deal because I cannot take the hunting.

    7. Left something out I need peoples input on this so please let me have it.

      I was brought up looking at guns as a tool to put food on the table. I have a family of five and have a job where I get laid off in the winter months and unemployment is impossible to live but yet is too much to get assistance so hunting was how I put food on the table.

      How fare is it to steal that right. This needs to all be considered where rich politicians put laws on the books that effect all people not just people who abuse their rights when a firearm is involved!!!

    8. First of all, if Mr. Skoien had any idea that he would be subject to a background check in VA if he applied for a hunting license, then he should have done his hunting in a state that does not do background checks for such sporting licenses (like here in MA and NH). Personally, I think that his downfall was his mouth (as it usually is when the police get “anonymous tips”). If he was a prohibited person under Lautenberg, why wasn’t he flagged as such and denied under NICS when he purchased the shotgun? Something is missing here.

    9. Lautenberg was merely a way to restrict firearms ownership among those who would obey the law. Criminals will still access weapons that they are not legally allowed to have because, hey, they’re criminals.

      I’ll be glad to see the end of this lunacy.

    10. in US v Larry W.Campbell, the federal judge stated that state judges use male gender profiling per all protection orders and congress wanted the federal courts to support such male gender pro- filing , no contact with the ex for 10 years, Some persons do abuse protection orders to have control over the father who wants to be a father to his children, of course, all Dad’ are dead beat dad; and all males do bad thing to women

    11. so Iv’e been convicted of a future crime? based onthis statement.Prosecutors pointed to a comment made in the Heller opinion to the effect that the decision “should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.” They argued that this should be recognized to include persons prohibited under Lautenberg, and that the government had a compelling need to restrict guns from domestic violence abusers because such abuse is an indicator for future acts of violence.
      I didn’t realize that this is legal.
      here is my story and there are very many more like it.
      I am so tired of this whole issue. Even in my line of work I am affected by events that occurred over 20 years ago. If I had know then the impact on my life those incidents could present I would have picked a different way (legally) to handle it. But since those laws were not in affect how could I? Because of a dv conviction over twenty years ago I can’t even wear protective armor ie bullet proof vest. As a paramedic that works in a 911 service I find that rather disturbing not to mention the fact that my family is concerned that I can’t even protect myself when the opportunity is available. I could go on for hours about this and all points are sound and reasonable. Growing up in a local community where rowdiness was part of the accepted behavior made it hard to fully develop into a truly acceptable member of a regular society. I made the necessary changes and have never repeated those behaviors however several years later some laws were changed that affected me for the rest of my life. I was never afforded the full benefit of being able to weigh all the consequences therefore I was not given my full right to fully defend myself. I can’ t help the fact that I feel as if I’ve been stabbed in the back and my assaulter was not man enough to even face me first.

    12. Let’s imagine this, a person (gender un-important) is convicted of a misdemeanor DV violation in court with out the use of any weapon. At a later date this same person, is pushed to limit again, grabs a 10 inch kitchen knife and kills their spouse/etc. What did the Lautenberg Ammendment accomplish? Nothing at all. Now lets say you have a minor and their friends that hate their parents/step-parents/gaurdians beccause these same adults try to do the right thing by ensureing that the minor goes to school, doesn’t get involved in drugs/alcohol, doesn’t get involved in crimal activities, and this same minor is a ‘large child’ (6′, 300-325 lbs) and the parents/step-parents/gaurdians are more ‘petite. So this ‘large’ minor attacks the adult and because of the size difference the adult just tries to push the minor away to avoid being harmed. The police are called, and when everyone is court, the minor and friends lie, so you have several against one and the adult is convicted of a misdemeanor DV when they were actually inocent? Well that happened to me, and with the billions of people in the US, I highly doubt that I am the only one that this has happened to. So where are my rights, and why are my rights violated? Also, did I already mention that I am in my mid 40’s with nothing more on my record then a few speading tickets, and an exemplory military record/career.

    13. Im sorry to sound rather blind and not being able to fully understand this article so please bare with me. I was convicted of a domestic violence charge over a year and a half ago and found out after my probation that i was unable to bare firearms. Now if i understand this article correctly could this put an end to the amendment and allow me to possess my firearms again or is this something that is highly unlikely to happen? Again i appoligize for not being a little more intelligent about these things.

    14. I heard they finalized it yesterday, skoien lost so did the rest of us watching this outcome. Hey the only brightspot is this, freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose. I do not suppose the “legal” owners and firearms will be the ones left around for the endgame.

    15. Read the “Other Lautenberg ammendmant” This guy made a career of running game around the constitution, His only real fans live in ISREAL, I no longer wonder at the diversity of people who have had problems with thoes people existing.

    16. I pled no contest in Texas to this in 2003. My wife, kids and I were living with my mother (hard times) and we were about to move out. She forced the issue early and I grabbed her by the neck (no choking), and screamed at her. The cops came and charged me with misdemeanor assault family violence. I didn’t have the money so I was given a court appointed attorney. I didn’t plea down and I talked to him for all of 5 minutes on the preliminary hearing. On the day I went back to see the judge my attorney didn’t even show up. The judge was going to reset, but I told him I wanted to plead no contest and pay the 100 dollar fine. No probation, nothing. I think they put 7 days of jail on my record but the judge didn’t’ make me serve them (deferred them?).

      Well, now it seems I have lost one of my fundamental rights guaranteed under the bill of rights… for the rest of my life. If I can’t get it back, can’t they just take the rest of my rights away while they are at it? This country is a joke. They pay lip service to due process and freedom, but in the end our rights are so tenuous that they can disappear with a rider attached to a funding bill sent through congress in the middle of the night. What a joke.

    17. Sense the average citizen are not legal professionals, It should be “LAW” the Justice System explain the charges against you and what rights are at stake during the procedures.

    18. It is NOT illegal to own/use an Airgun because they are not “firearms”. They have been developed to a fine art in Germany and elsewhere, due to its restrictive firearms laws. I became involved with airguns while in the military. There are many types and they have been used to kill game as large as Bison. An excellent revolver for self defense is the Evanix AR6. Check it out the Evanix pistol, a six shot, can fire a 28 grain “pellet” at 700 feet per second muzzle velocity! It’ll go through a 1×4″ board like butter and hit a dime every time at 30feet!

      I was never informed of my Miranda rights when I was arrested for dv in 1996. I wonder if that could be sufficient justification for an appeal to my Iowa conviction?

    19. I was convicted of DV, to wit pulling on my ex’s arm until it hurt, in 1996. Suddenly in 1997, when they passed Lautenberg, I became a criminal. After the law was passed and for the rest of my life. For a misdemeanor? My crime had nothing to do with guns. Lautenberg is a SOB for sneaking this “rider bill” at the end of a large bill. Because he knew it wouldn’t be able to pass on it’s own merit. So much so, many states like Texas has made it a point to override on the state level. Texas says, among other granting liberties, that after a person has served out his sentence, five years after state supervision, that he can possess a gun. What did I loose out of this Lautenberg Admendment? Fourteen years of military and 11 years as a peace officer. Frank Lautenberg had no forethought or no care about the inequities he caused people in this country. And there’s a special place for politicians like him in hell. No one cares about me or people like me. Every time someone brings it up, some bleeding heart starts to howl about wife beaters and catagorize you. America, home of justice or maniplulation?

    20. Re: Mark Devaux’s comments on “ISREAL”

      “…I no longer wonder at the diversity of people who have had problems with those people existing.”

      It’s good that an illiterate and ignorant XXX like you can’t have firearms.

      To bad you’re allowed to have kids.

      Dumb XXX like you making comments like that make it worse for actual human beings that have been screwed by Lautenberg.

    21. i was charge with dv when i was 19 prior to that never been introuble since then now im 28 and wnt to be a arm security guard but branded a criminal for life and im not i dont gang bang or do drugs i had one bad day i nve caused bodily injury i pleaded guilty to get out of jail i was scared and nvr informed that i would loose my rights for life while felons could get there right to bare arms in ten year after .its not fair im a law abiding citizen and i love my country …but i guess justice is blind

    22. Actually the extraneous comments in the decision are not binding on anyone. They are what are known by attorneys to be “dicta.” Dicta is not binding because it is simply the court dithering until they make a decision on the case before it. I completely agree that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It is about the security of a free state, personal defense and opposing tyrany. And I’m here to tell ya there’s plenty of that these days.

    23. This amendment also affects those convicted of misdemeanor assault charges. I got into a fight with a complete stranger 40 years ago. I went to court ant the ripe old age of 18, I didn’t think I even needed a lawyer. Needless to say, I was found guilty, fined a small fine and went on my way. I served in the military, married, raised a family… Never had any problems with domestic violence, but I am now being told that I cannot own any firearms. I applied for a handgun permit in NC and was denied because of the assault charge that happened 40 years ago!

    24. Is their any update to this stupid lautenberg amendmendment this year. Took a plea in jan 96 while station in Alaska before this amendment was even thought of and now after 16 years I cannot have a license. Talking about ex post facto, and on top of that Alaska don’t have a expundgement or seal record so I’m screwed all around unless this law get changed. After 16 years never even had a parking ticket.

    25. I was convicted in FL in 1985, and like others. Wife was in the court room and I thought she was going to drop charges like some other cases before mine did. She punched my in the mouth and I slapped her and now, almost 30 years later, I cannot legally own any kind of firearm. The only trouble I’ve ever been, other than this, has been two speeding tickets. FL doesn’t allow expungements for cases that are convicted. I’ve remarried and have two wonderful kids and a wonderful wife, and retired from a decorated military career. I didn’t have to carry firearms while in the military so I wasn’t discharged. I hope that some day before I become too old to enjoy hunting that this law will be repealed.

    26. Like many others, in 1997 I got into a VERBAL argument with my ex. Police were called, both of us were arrested for Misdemeanor Domestic Disorderly Conduct. Haven’t gotten into any trouble since then. 15 years later, denied on purchasing a 22 caliber weapon.

      I’ve checked all the avenues I can think of. Unfortunately for misdemeanors, there is no actions we can take to get our rights restored.

      Even looked into getting a Pardon, but upon looking into it, this is what I found: “The pardon process has been suspended indefinitely.”

      If anyone has any new information on this subject, please share.

      Thank you for your time.

    27. I too have checked every possible way to restore my 2nd Amendment rights and there is only one way that can happen. That is if the Lautenberg Amendment is done away with. Richard posted a link to a petition to repeal the Amendment. I am asking all my friends, family, and co-workers to go sign it. I am also posting the link on every related blog that I can find. If we all do the same, there may be a chance.

    28. You people that support this stupid amendment are clueless. There are many people like me that are not violent. We got into a relationship with a crazy person. In my case, my ex was a meth user and attacked me after I brought her daughter to school for no reason. I say on her and held her arms to settle her down while she continued biting me and kicking me. I got up when she finally calmed down and was heading to the phone to call the police. She ripped the phone cord out of the wall. I went to the front desk of the motel and had them call the police. The police came and arrested both of us. She got off of the charges because one of her “customers” from the strip club paid for an attorney. I was going to fight the charges, but after sitting in jail for 30 days and still no court date, my attorney told me I could get time served if I plead no contest. He never said anything about my gun rights or I surely wouldn’t have plead.

      The moral of the story is good, honest, non-violent people get affected by this dumb law from scandalous women that lie to police when it was them in the wrong. I’ve never been arrested for anything violent or even been in a fight my entire life. This was the only blemish and I left her immediately afterwards. It has affected my life and I did nothing wrong. I wanted to join the army and couldn’t. I wanted to be a police officer and couldn’t. This law is meant for violent people, not people like me. It needs to be changed before other non-violent people’s lives are effected like mine…period.

    29. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html

      According to the Government ATF website listed above:
      Q: Is an individual who has been pardoned, or whose conviction was expunged or set aside, or whose civil rights have been restored, considered convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

      No, as long as the pardon, expungement, or restoration does not expressly provide that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

    30. So from what i am reading if i understand this right if i have a DV on my record in MA and its more than 15 years old I can have my record sealed and my rights will be restored??? Has anyone done this and is that true??

      btw, it was something my ex’s fling said to charge me with to get back at me. Now i am paying for my past association with a crazy ex… I think that is the main reason i have no trust in women or the judicial system.

    31. Justin to answer your Q – Federal Gov. controls/overides State laws! Its communism! The Feds dont let States enforce their own laws! Originally yes a Set aside/expungement 1203.4 would restore gun rights after a 10yr. restriction mandated by the State but the Feds stepped in and said NO! Felons can get their rights back from a Gov. pardon but you cant get a Gov. pardon for a misdemeanor and a 1203.4, thanks to the Feds, it isn’t valid. There are three requirements any which one must be met to qualify as banned. You can find them out upon further research. This is a total POS “law” ex-post facto and all! F-lautenberg!

    32. I was 21 when I got into an argument with my drunk girl friend. She attacked me and all I did was hold her down long enough to tell her to stop and let me leave. The police arrested me and charged me with Domestic Battery! I tried to tell them what had happened, that she was drunk and trying to scratch my face (as she had already done prior to this) and wouldn’t let me leave but they sided with the girl as they often do. Because of this incident many many years ago I cannot own a gun. How is that right? I’m married now and other than a DUI seven years ago I haven’t had any contact with the police and my wife and I never argue. Do I sound like the kind of person who will be violent in the future? I wish someone would do something about this law. I agree that repeat offenders should lose their rights and would even support a temporary ban up to 5 or 10 years but to lose your right to own a weapon for life is insane! My biggest regret is that I listened to the prosecutor and plead down the conviction rather then fighting it. He told me simple battery would not effect my rights and I needed this to go away prior to shipping out for Basic Training so I took the deal. I just wish I would have stood my ground and if I knew then what I know now I would have.

    33. I was 19 and she wasn’t even my girlfriend just a female friend she was drunk and got upset and called the cops, I am now 34 and I still can’t get one.

    34. to J : Most states allow even felonies to be expunged (removed) from your record if you have been a good boy for the last 10 years or so….get a lawyer.

    35. David, Fed. Gov. overrides State laws so even an expungement/set aside granted by a superior court judge will NOT help. The Feds are going to block it! And now with the new NICS system, instant background checks are mandatory. You can however obtain info from “DOJ” on how to appeal it but more likely than not you wont and then the Feds will notify local police about you and they may pay you a visit in the middle of the nite. Its really pretty sad! I have a feeling we the people will have our day in court and win, at least on the ex post facto issue and gain an appeals process, GOD willing! I try to tell everyone I can about this stupid “law”. My boys know just to run away from crazy emotional bitches!

    36. Hi everyone.
      Time to write your elected Congressman, and Senators. The squeaky wheel gets greased.
      Copy and paste this letter. Not many know about this law. Time for it to go away.

      I request you to pass legislation to Repeal the Lautenberg Amendment
      (section section 658 of Public Law 104-208 ) that Bill Clinton signed into
      law back in 1996. It serves no purpose other than to create very thin and
      questionable criteria to permanently ban citizens from their “Right to
      Keep and Bear Arms”.
      Soldiers, police officers, and anyone who has been judged to have
      committed a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence has incurred a lifetime
      ban to own or possess firearms.
      As you know, a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence need not involved a
      physical crime, but a mere verbal exchange, with the punishment sometimes
      being only a $10 fine. In many metro areas, a second phone call to a
      house over a family altercation will result in the standard police
      procedure of automatically arresting the male occupant, regardless of who
      is at fault or whether any threats were made.
      Just as bad, this legislation associates gun owners with “wife beaters” as
      if the two are some how linked, which they are not. It is an intentional
      slander to law abiding citizens, a breach of Constitutional freedoms, and a
      hindrance to our military and law enforcement services. Many soldiers and
      police officers have lost their jobs over their legal ban on carrying
      weapons because of this dishonest law.
      And I won’t even bother going into its unconstitutional ex-post-facto
      characteristics. Next all Misdemeanor convictions will result in a lifetime gun ban.
      If a Convicted Felon can have gun rights restore a person with a Misdemeanor conviction should have the same opportunity.

      Please work to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment.

    37. Is it tru that if you were not represented by a lawyer
      And waved your rightes you might have a chance to restore
      Your gun rights. I dnt know how tru it is but if someone knows about
      This please post

    38. Some who have a domestic violence conviction have in fact been domestic violence abused by the very same “victim” that brought their conviction and more often. The “victim” has gun rights and the convictee doesn’t. Its especially hard when the act that brought the first conviction was actually self defense but an unscrupulous appointed attorney pushed for a plea bargain, cause it was easier on him. Want the case number just ask??

    39. Imagine a 50 something military veteran misdemeanor domestic violence convictee who can go to the gun range with his 20 something daughters but can’t legally target practice with them nor even by example show them the proper way to hold the gun, tyranny? injustice? both?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>