In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
The Domestic Violence Disability
nunn
Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,005 ******
This came up in another thread, but it is sort of off-topic, and probably deserves its own thread, so here it is:
The problems that I see with a domestic violence conviction keeping one from owning a firearm are twofold.
Firstly, we have generally accepted that there a person loses civil rights when he is convicted of a FELONY. Most domestic violence cases are misdemeanors.
Second, the disability was made ex post facto. That is, the law could be applied to everyone who had EVER been convicted of domestic violence, even years ago. So, here is what can happen: In 1987, Dick and Jane, a married couple, get into a squabble. Jane calls the cops. Jane has no visible injury, but she claims Dick laid hands on her and it hurt. Cops arrest Dick for Assault Causing * Injury, a Class A misdemeanor.
Dick is arraigned and released on bond. In the intervening weeks, Jane decides that maybe she isn't as angry at Dick as she was, and now she isn't being cooperative with the prosecutor. The prosecutor, knowing he has a "her word against his" case, makes a plea agreement with Dick. Dick is allowed to enter a guilty plea to the charge of Simple Assault, a Class C misdemeanor. There is no jail time associated with this degree of offense, but Dick pays a fine, and now has a "domestic violence" conviction on his record. At the time, such a conviction has no effect on Dick's life, so he pays his fine and court costs and goes on, thinking he got screwed a little, but that it could have been worse.
20 years later, Dick decides to take up Sporting Clays and goes to buy his first shotgun. No sale. Can't pass the NICS check because of the conviction now. Prior to the Lautenberg Amendment, Dick visited the gun store once in a while, and bought a .22 rifle for his son, and made many ammo purchases, and even bought a .38 revolver for home protection. After Lautenberg, not only can Dick not buy any more guns or ammo, but it is unlawful for him to continue to possess those that he had bought previously.
IS THIS FAIR?
The problems that I see with a domestic violence conviction keeping one from owning a firearm are twofold.
Firstly, we have generally accepted that there a person loses civil rights when he is convicted of a FELONY. Most domestic violence cases are misdemeanors.
Second, the disability was made ex post facto. That is, the law could be applied to everyone who had EVER been convicted of domestic violence, even years ago. So, here is what can happen: In 1987, Dick and Jane, a married couple, get into a squabble. Jane calls the cops. Jane has no visible injury, but she claims Dick laid hands on her and it hurt. Cops arrest Dick for Assault Causing * Injury, a Class A misdemeanor.
Dick is arraigned and released on bond. In the intervening weeks, Jane decides that maybe she isn't as angry at Dick as she was, and now she isn't being cooperative with the prosecutor. The prosecutor, knowing he has a "her word against his" case, makes a plea agreement with Dick. Dick is allowed to enter a guilty plea to the charge of Simple Assault, a Class C misdemeanor. There is no jail time associated with this degree of offense, but Dick pays a fine, and now has a "domestic violence" conviction on his record. At the time, such a conviction has no effect on Dick's life, so he pays his fine and court costs and goes on, thinking he got screwed a little, but that it could have been worse.
20 years later, Dick decides to take up Sporting Clays and goes to buy his first shotgun. No sale. Can't pass the NICS check because of the conviction now. Prior to the Lautenberg Amendment, Dick visited the gun store once in a while, and bought a .22 rifle for his son, and made many ammo purchases, and even bought a .38 revolver for home protection. After Lautenberg, not only can Dick not buy any more guns or ammo, but it is unlawful for him to continue to possess those that he had bought previously.
IS THIS FAIR?
Comments
I know a guy that was convicted of a felony while piloting a barge fleeting service boat. They were pumping the river water out of the ballast tanks and back into the river from a leak. The state police arrested him and the fleet's manager. They threw the book at the manager, but John was convicted of a minor felony. He kept his job. The rest of the industry still pumps the river water from the wing tanks back into the river, except ARTCO in Illinois.
That would be the next step.
Specific to your topic David, this relates to Ex Post Facto laws:
Ex Post Facto Laws
Are statutes that make an act punishable as a crime when such an act was not an offense when committed. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law; Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government. The Supreme Court early determined that these clauses prohibit laws with retroactive effect only in the field of criminal law and do not apply to statutes dealing with civil matters. Nonetheless, retroactive laws in the civil area may under certain circumstances violate the Contract or Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. The ban on ex post facto laws operates solely as a restraint on legislative power and has no application to changes in the law made by judicial decision.
Besides preventing the enactment of laws making acts criminal that were not criminal when committed, the Ex Post Facto Clauses also render invalid the retroactive application of laws that, while not creating new offenses, aggravate the seriousness of a crime. Moreover, a statute that prescribes a greater punishment for a crime already committed violates the clauses. A law that alters the rules of evidence so as to make it substantially easier to convict a defendant is likewise prohibited by the Constitution.
kinda off/on topic not really sure.... BUT for any VA. LEO's isn't it true that now in the state of va. any call of domestic violence results in BOTH parties being at least charged, not necessarily convicted but charged with domestic violence? I talked to a friend o mine recently and she said she had a DV at her house and because of her job she can't even have a charge of DV on her record,doesnt have to be conviction just a charge and she'd lose her job.... VA. leo's is there any truth to this??
Not true. If one party has a black eye, and the other party only has bruised knuckles, the knuckles go to jail. If both parties have injuries that sustain mutual combat, both go to jail, and the courts sort it out. If neither party has visible injuries, and both state that an assault took place, then likely both go. It's a grey area that the on-scene officer has to make a call, however, some jurisdictions may have policies that both get locked up.
Next target: Drunk drivers.
Watch out, you DUI boys. They will probably make this one ex post facto, also.
People just don't realize what this actually does to someone.....people don't KNOW what they will be doing in 5 or 10 years. There may be a need for a little part time work where a security job would fit perfectly into things so you could make ends meet....but NO...because you have a domestic violence charge from some rediculous circumstance 20 years ago....you cannot have a gun!
Doug
I don't think it was ever about domestic violence, knowing Lautenberg, I think the intent was to limit guns to another segment of society.
Abusing your wife was always illegal - they simply made it clear that it now applies to gun ownership. And since it was always illegal, it is not ex post facto.
Ex post facto would be declaring something that wasn't illegal is now illegal and said illegality now extends to all who had committed said acts.
As far as I know, no one has had their guns confiscated over this - they simply can't buy new ones. If guns are being confiscated, then that would be ex post facto and incredibly illegal. But if not, it seems perfectly reasonable and legal to me. Maybe it's not fair, but maybe they should have thought about it before they smacked their wives around.
All people who suffer from any mental illness should not be allowed to own a firearm.
That would be the next step.
By that reasoning I doubt anyone would be able to own a gun!
Ask yourself this!
Have you ever been depressed due to a personal loss?
Have you ever lashed out (even if only verbally) in anger?
Have you ever suffered from a tragic event in your life that caused you to lose sleep due to nightmares or something of the sort?
Have you ever had any symptom of any thing that might be considered in a mental status?
I am sure everyone can answer yes to these questions!
If so you could be diagnossed as haveing a mental illness at some level so you would be excluded from owning a gun!
GrD - denying that you have a mental illness is a sign of having a mental illness...
That is kinda the point I was makeing.[:D]
Everyone has suffered a form of mental illness at some point in thier lives for some reason or another no matter how mild of a case it might have been.
My biggest one that I confront people on is with combat veterans.
Every combat veteran has suffered some sort of PTSD if even only on a small limited basis. And if they haven't they are just cold blooded killers who are mentally ill anyway!
One Texan man who pled "nolo contende" to the charge of domestic violence....appears to not have lost his right to bear arms.
deferred adjudication in Texas is not a conviction..........
http://www.ci.euless.tx.us/courts/deferred_adj.htm
But yer fighting a Jewish man and his law and you won't win....Lautenberg...Senator in New Joysey.
quote:Second, the disability was made ex post facto.The law was not.
Abusing your wife was always illegal - they simply made it clear that it now applies to gun ownership. And since it was always illegal, it is not ex post facto.
Ex post facto would be declaring something that wasn't illegal is now illegal and said illegality now extends to all who had committed said acts.
As far as I know, no one has had their guns confiscated over this - they simply can't buy new ones. If guns are being confiscated, then that would be ex post facto and incredibly illegal. But if not, it seems perfectly reasonable and legal to me. Maybe it's not fair, but maybe they should have thought about it before they smacked their wives around.
It was legal to buy and own guns, now it is not. A God-given, Constitutionally guaranteed right has been taken away because of a past criminal act. The act got, or gets, punished as normal, but now the God-given, Constitutional Right is removed.
Lets, for the sake of argument, say that "Mr." Lautenburg brokered the passage of the following legislation:
Lets say you can never buy, or drive, a car again, because you broke a traffic law in the 1960's or 70's, say DUI.
Never be allowed to have a child again, because you beat, or yelled at yours 20 years ago.
Never be allowed to own a home again, because you went bankrupt and had a foreclosure 20 years ago.
Never be allowed to hunt again, because you were convicted of possessing one too many doves 20 years ago.
Never allowed to use physical force, for any reason, because you had a simple assault conviction 20 years ago.
Never allowed to own a dog again, because you forgot and left yours in a locked car on a 75 degree day, with the windows cracked, but got convicted of misdemeanor animal abuse because a doo-gooder saw and reported it, all this 20 years ago.
How far off are we from being forbidden to have a gun, because of a past simple assault conviction for a minor physical altercation where you used "Hate-Speech" e.g. called someone a fag, or a homo, or the "N" word, or a "cracker/peckerwood", or that they were fat and ugly???
I could go on, but why bother. Some of you just don't get it.[V][:(]
Domestic Violence, Expungement, and Firearm Rights
If you are convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) you generally are prohibited under federal law from possessing any firearm or ammunition. This includes shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce and from receiving any such firearm or ammunition.
However, expungement will lift the disabilities and penalties associated with the original domestic violence conviction. Therefore, an expungement will restore gun ownership rights under federal law.
A qualifying MCDV is an offense that:
Is a federal, state, or local offense that is a misdemeanor under federal or state law;
Has an element the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and,
At the time the MCDV was committed, the defendant was:
A current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;
A person with whom the victim shared a child in common;
A person who was cohabiting with or had cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian; or,
A person who was or had been similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
A person has not been convicted of a qualifying MCDV:
IF the person was not represented by counsel-unless he or she knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel;
IF the person was entitled to a jury trial AND the case was not tried by a jury-unless the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to jury trial; or,
IF the conviction was set aside or expunged; the person was pardoned; or, the person's civil rights-the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold elected office-were restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense).
BUT: This exception does NOT lift the federal firearms prohibition if:
The expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms; or,
The person is otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing any firearms.
CLEAR ENOUGH ????