Lautenberg Act

["DoubleAction"]

Another Clinton Go Getter

I was the Guy Which Brought You The Lautenberg Act; heee, heee

Frank Lautenberg - Democrat

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (1996) was an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 which was passed by the 104th US Congress in the Fall of 1996. Officially known as 'Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence' -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)'[1], 'Public Law 104-208'[2] and is often referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment after its sponsor, Frank Lautenberg.

The Lautenberg Act conflicts with State Laws that are in effect that do not impose a statute under federal law, and or state laws preventing persons from owning a firearm, ammunition, or possessing of such items.

In Example: A person convicted of Domestic Violene in Texas is charged with and convicted of a Misdemeanor Charge Class A. A person convicted of Domestic Violence in very few other states Domestic Violence is charged as a felony.

In all states a violation of a protective order, as well as any other act of Domestic Violence while a protective order is in place is Considered a Felony and the Charges that were initially filed will automatically become a felony charge of Domestic Violence.

The Lautenberg Amendment and or Act does not specify to whether or not a Felony Conviction of Domestic Violence whether by plea, or by Deferred Adjudication or a Misdemeanor Charge of Domestic Violence should fall under the act.

The Lautenberg Amendment excludes all persons convicted of any type of Domestic Violence, or the Subject of a Magistrates Protective order from owning or possessing any type of Firearm, Ammunition, and or other types of weapons that involve a projectile device.

www.gopetition.com/petitions/amend-lautenberg-act-amendment.html

The nation's police forces are up in arms over a new federal gun control law that could strip thousands of them of their guns and jobs. Most police organizations have enthusiastically supported every gun control scheme President Clinton has put forward. Few Americans realized that such legislation almost always contained an exemption for the policemen themselves regarding their official duties. But poetic justice may finally have arrived. Unfortunately, its arrival also heralds the decimation of constitutional rights of a million or more other Americans.

Last September 28, as part of a massive appropriations bill, Congress passed the so-called Lautenberg Act, which greatly increases the number of Americans prohibited by federal law from owning firearms. For the first time, thanks to an amendment by Georgia's Rep. Bob Barr, law-enforcement officials are not exempt from the nation's gun control laws.

The Lautenberg Act prohibits anyone from owning a gun or possessing any ammunition who has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor involving the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon against a spouse, child, or intimate partner. (People with any felony conviction have been prohibited from owning guns since 1968.) Any person with such a misdemeanor on his record who is found in possession of a gun or even of a single bullet can face a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison — longer than the average convicted murderer serves in this country.

Gerald Arenberg, executive director of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, observed that the act "has thrown the whole world into confusion for cops." Victor Kappeler, director of the Criminal Justice Graduate Program at Eastern Kentucky University, estimated that if accurate reporting of all such police domestic violence occurred, and if all such assaults were fully prosecuted, 10% of the nation's law-enforcement officials (70,000 individuals) could be found guilty and thus banned from possessing a firearm under the new law.

www.fff.org/freedom/0597d.asp

Have You Had Enough ? You Haven't Seen Nothing Yet !!!

["DoubleAction"]

THE LAUTENBERG DOMESTIC CONFISCATION LAW
Analysis by
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
[phone]

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.

["DoubleAction"]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban

["DoubleAction"]

Firearms Prohibitions and Domestic Violence
Convictions: The Lautenberg Amendment
Summary
The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 establishes a
comprehensive regulatory scheme designed to prevent the use of firearms in domestic
violence offenses. To this end, the Amendment prohibits the possession of firearms
by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and, relatedly,
prohibits the knowing sale or disposition of any firearm or ammunition to a domestic
violence misdemeanant. Furthermore, the Lautenberg Amendment alters the
traditional public interest exception to the possession of firearms under the Gun
Control Act by making the prohibition applicable to any individual convicted of a
domestic violence misdemeanor, including federal, state, and local law enforcement
officers.
The provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment have been challenged on three
primary grounds. First, opponents of the law maintain that it violates the Commerce
Clause by classifying as a federal offense activity that does not have an effect on
interstate commerce as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Lopez. It has also been argued that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause by
punishing domestic violence misdemeanors more harshly than other misdemeanor
offenses, by punishing misdemeanor but not felony offenses, and by excluding law
enforcement officers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses from the
public interest exception of 18 U.S.C. §925(a)(1). Furthermore, the law has been
attacked as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause on the basis that it prohibits the
possession of a firearm by a domestic violence misdemeanant even if the predicate
offense occurred prior to its enactment.
Reviewing courts have rejected these challenges to the Lautenberg Amendment,
determining that its provisions fall within acceptable constitutional parameters.
Regarding the Commerce Clause, courts have held that the law contains an express
jurisdictional element requiring a finding that the firearm in question was possessed
in or affecting commerce, or was received after having been shipped or transported
in interstate or foreign commerce, obviating the concerns at issue in United States v.
Lopez. Equal Protection Clause challenges have been rejected upon the determination
that Congress rationally concluded that misdemeanor domestic violence offenders
should not possess firearms. Finally, the courts have held that the law does not violate
the Ex Post Facto Clause in that it prohibits post-enactment possession and does not
criminalize conduct occurring before its enactment.

www.peaceathomeshelter.org/DV/readings/federal/lautenberg.pdf