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.

Is this true?

CORRENCORREN Member Posts: 466 ✭✭✭
I heard a rumor that there is a gun law that went through stating that, If you have ever been convicted of a domestic violence crime, you loose your gun rights for life. I also heard that this law is retro-active. Has anyone else heard anything about this? Just want to know if there is any truth to it? Also another question, did this law apply only to felonies or does it include misdomeanors too?

Comments

  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    No rumor at all.

    Fact.
    A Federal law..and just one more example of rampant disregard..no,contempt..for the Constitution..by your elected representitives.
  • CORRENCORREN Member Posts: 466 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    does it apply to misdomeanors too? and how far back does it go?
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Suggest you do a web search.I don't remember the exact date passed..3-4 years ago...maybe more.

    Also don't remember the extent of this law.I believe that merely being issued a restraining order is enough for them to take your guns...some one may be along that has the data at their fingertips...

    God,Guts,& Guns<BR>Have we lost all 3 ??<BR>

    http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/ffc/chapter5/chapter5.html#id74018

    Possession of Firearm After Conviction of Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)
    As of September 30, 1996, it is illegal to possess a firearm after conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. This prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the new law's effective date. A qualifying misdemeanor domestic violence crime must have as an element the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. For example, a conviction for a misdemeanor violation of a protection order will not qualify, even if the violation was committed by a violent act, if the statute does not require the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. The U. S. Attorney's Office can determine which misdemeanor convictions qualify.

    In addition, the statute contains due process requirements regarding counsel and jury trials. Absent compliance with these due process requirements, the misdemeanor conviction will not qualify as a domestic violence conviction for purposes of Section 922(g)(9). Moreover, a person may be able to possess a firearm if the conviction has been expunged or set aside.

    Transfer of Firearm to Person Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
  • nomadictaonomadictao Member Posts: 1,310 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I looked around on line and it looked like the law said anyone convicted of a misdomeanor domestic violence can't possess a firearm. Check it yourself. I guess the ATF won't prosecute if the person is a LEO. Another messed up law.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Long story short.

    Yes, misdemeanors are included.

    How far does it go back?
    If you have EVER been convicted.

    http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/qa.htm

    http://www.letswrap.com/legal/firearms.htm

    The gene pool needs chlorine.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I understand that LEO's who fall into this catagory cannot take their firearms home off duty or even possess a firearm off duty. And the military will either keep you from joining or give you a job (cook) and not give you a gun.

    In regards to fairness of a law that punishes people for actions taken BEFORE the law even took effect, how many times in the history of our country has such a law been passed that goes back in time and punishes you for before the law passed?

    Kinda like spitting on the sidewalk when there is no law against it. Next day anti-spitting on sidewalk law passed and made retroactive. Cop who observed you spit on sidewalk yesterday comes to your house and writes you a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk yesterday, when there was no law against it.

    Or better yet, kinda like the IRS arresting you for tax evasion on your 2003 income tax return. Even though you followed the law for that year, this year the law was changed and made RETROACTIVE so now they go back and charge you with violating income tax law on past returns.

    With this type of unfair law, there is no end to the mischeif the government can do to us.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • CORRENCORREN Member Posts: 466 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Went down to talk to my friend in the DA office today but they are closed for a holiday. Talked to a friend in probation she told me a misdomeaner normally gets a ten year suspension but sense mine is old it may be a life ban. she said i should try to get the charge dismissed. Guess ill get a lawyer to look into it for me.Ive never been denied so i may be out of the system.But why chance it?
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,672 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Disclaimer: I'm not known for being smart, so you might not want to take my advice.

    Why not try to buy a gun and see if you get rejected. When you try to get it taken off without knowing if you are in the system might get you put into the system. I think there is a question on the form about domestic abuse. If it asks if you EVER had a misdemeanor domestic abuse, tell the truth. A lie on the form is a whole new set of problems.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • CORRENCORREN Member Posts: 466 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have and have never been denied. I was told about the law from a friend who is going through an ugly divorce and wondered if it was true.Now im not sure what to do.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    What EVER you do..please keep supporting those corrupt,empty suits that slime about in the hallowed halls of power in your state and national political centers.

    They DEPEND on you to give them power and credence by begging them to obey the Constitution....
  • JamesRKJamesRK Member Posts: 25,672 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If you are telling the truth on the form and not getting denied, I sure wouldn't bring the subject up to them. I would let it lay.
    The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
  • mrs102mrs102 Member Posts: 1,087 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Old misdemeanor violations on a record may not have "domestic violence related", or similar notation, posted with the violation. I don't know how many States have gone back through records and police reports to determine if old violations are domestic related. Probably not many. It is very common in my State, Wisconsin, to be charged with "domestic related" Disorderly Conduct. This may be no more than a huge shouting match with a threat or two thrown in. A neighbor or passer-by hears it and calls police. The "victim" (spouse, brother, roommate, etc) says, "Yeah, s/he said s/he was going to knock me on my *". "You got here just in time".

    Disorderly conduct. MANADATORY ARREST. Mandatory booking. Mandatory 72 Hour No-contact order (unless victim signs-off) Fine: $200 plus costs. Penalty: No future possession of firearms and surrender of all currently possessed firearms.

    Surrendered/seized firearms in Wisconsin must be turned over to the Department of Justice - Crime Lab. If they (Crime Lab) already have one in their vast collection they are destroyed.
  • FitzFitz Member Posts: 258 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Article I. Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    Call me naive, but it seems to me that any decent Constitutional lawyer could get this law struck down with relative ease.

    Fitz
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Finally, another Constitutionally aware person. Good show, Fitz.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The answer is pretty clear.We no longer operate under the Constitution...and haven't for many years.
  • EOD GuyEOD Guy Member Posts: 931
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Fitz
    Article I. Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    Call me naive, but it seems to me that any decent Constitutional lawyer could get this law struck down with relative ease.

    Fitz


    They already tried. The Supreme Court said the law was constitutional.
  • young n dumyoung n dum Member Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    no CHARGE required.....all it takes is the restraining order for you to no longer considered to be an "elligible person" to posess a firearm

    imay not know it all.....but at least I know that!
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Straight out of the United States Code:

    Title 18 USC 922(g)(9) - It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
    to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The restraining order part is in 18 USC 922(g)(8):

    It shall be unlawful for any person-
    who is subject to a court order that-
    (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
    (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of * injury to the partner or child; and
    (C)
    (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
    (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause * injury;
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:They already tried. The Supreme Court said the law was constitutional.

    That's because our Supreme Court has turned into a super legislation, capable of passing laws not passed by the majority, as our so-called "democracy" would have.

    Do we all understand this, yet?

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
    "Followers of Christ, be armed."
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    Been a State law here in Maine for some time now...........
  • bubba41bubba41 Member Posts: 4 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here in Michigan I went through a divorce, ugly, I found out some things via a mutual friend that I regurdgitated back to her. She said I was stalking her (which was not the case), anyway a PPO was taken out against me. I was an FFL dealer, the order made it so I could not purchase or sell any guns, nor could I transfer my inventory to myself which was the instructions I received from the BATF. So, 4 years later I am still sitting on inventory. I was tired of fighting and have not persued the issue although a State Police officer said that the ppo was a kooling off period and now I should be ok..I will be checking in the next few weeks. May not be of any help to you, just venting.

    Eric W. Stevens
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bubba41
    Here in Michigan I went through a divorce, ugly, I found out some things via a mutual friend that I regurdgitated back to her. She said I was stalking her (which was not the case), anyway a PPO was taken out against me. I was an FFL dealer, the order made it so I could not purchase or sell any guns, nor could I transfer my inventory to myself which was the instructions I received from the BATF. So, 4 years later I am still sitting on inventory. I was tired of fighting and have not persued the issue although a State Police officer said that the ppo was a kooling off period and now I should be ok..I will be checking in the next few weeks. May not be of any help to you, just venting.

    Eric W. Stevens


    From what you describe, it seems like the government has provided, and your estranged (ex?) wife has found, a law that can be easily and legally used to cause great harm to any gun owner/dealer that an unethical and enraged spouse cares to cause to the other spouse.

    And of course, with my opinion of some people in government, I doubt that anybody cares about this gross injustice but us gun rights proponents.

    4lizad
  • mpolansmpolans Member Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bubba41
    Here in Michigan I went through a divorce, ugly, I found out some things via a mutual friend that I regurdgitated back to her. She said I was stalking her (which was not the case), anyway a PPO was taken out against me. I was an FFL dealer, the order made it so I could not purchase or sell any guns, nor could I transfer my inventory to myself which was the instructions I received from the BATF. So, 4 years later I am still sitting on inventory. I was tired of fighting and have not persued the issue although a State Police officer said that the ppo was a kooling off period and now I should be ok..I will be checking in the next few weeks. May not be of any help to you, just venting.

    Eric W. Stevens


    Surely you had to have some sort of court hearing before the PPO was ordered. What did your attorney have to say? How did it go down?
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree that this initially sounds disturbing, but in my limited experience with restraining orders there usually has to be some sort of previous criminal history. Of course, it is all up to the judge I suppose, and it may differ from state to state. The two people I know that have tried to get restraining orders in the past (both young females living in California) were denied because the suspects had no criminal history.

    I'm curious if anyone has encountered this as well. I assume that a domestic violence conviction is a felony, so therefore you would be a felon and, in my opinion, have lost your rights through due process of law.

    Bubba41, I don't mean to pry, but were there any previous convictions in your situation? Did they actually seize your guns or only bar you from transfering them?

    -WW

    wwsm.GIF
    "...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

    -The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I reread the thread and picked up the misdemeanor part. THAT I don't agree with. If they can't convict you on a felony then the charges are probably bogus anyway. Like the stupid law where if somebody calls the cops on you for "domestic violence" then they are forced to arrest one of you and take you to jail. What a hell of a way to get at a neighbor.

    -WW

    wwsm.GIF
    "...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

    -The Debates in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. June 27, 1788.
Sign In or Register to comment.