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
Lautenburg Amendment
t1r1jones
Member Posts: 5 ✭✭
The Govt. has come up with yet a another way to "lawfully" confiscate guns:use the Lautenburg Amendment!!i.e. A friend of mine goes out hunting 2yrs ago.A companion steps on a locked & cocked Rem 870.You guessed it, gun discharges & blows Mr.Clumsy's heel off!! Since it's a personal injury with a weapon while hunting, IA DNR is involved.The game warden HAS to contact Des Moines BATFE field office.BATFE TELLS IA DNR warden to keep the shotgun because,After runn'in a background ck. on Rem 870 owner,the owner was CHARGED with Domestic Violence 3 yrs BEFORE Laun. Amend. was enacted & CAN NOT possess a firearm!IA DNR warden says he'll keep the shotgun until sitution gets resolved? Warden tells man that he better NOT be caught hunting with a firearm(in IA this includes muzzleloaders) or off to jail he goes w/State & Fed charges to face!He can hunt w/ a bow--how generous!He(the 2nd Amendmentless man) can try for a 20 pg pardon Q & A w/2yr wait similar to a Felon's Gov. pardon to restore rights-good luck & have lots of money for the lawyer!FYI all his other weapons had to leave his own house/possession permently!!Just thought I'd post this let everyone know how easy it is to have the Govt. use a no-due-process law to take your guns.Remember, you ONLY have to be charged with the Dom.Viol. NOT[:(] convicted of it!!!Found NOT Guilty,charges dropped or Aqquited does'nt count.
Comments
Good luck getting your rights back. I support you.
If there was a court order that required that you turn in all your firearms, yes you might be a felon. Try harder to keep your arsenal a secret (too late maybe, you posted here) and try to transfer it to a relative who is not otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm him/herself.
Get back in touch with your original divorce attorney to check to see the final decree and see how it applies to your owning firearms and then something might be done to get this off your record. Some men have just tried to get their stuff out of the house and their wife stands in the way blocking their path. The men do nothing more than grab her by the shoulders to move her aside and ,BINGO, they have committed assault and domestic violence and have lost their right to keep and bear arms for life.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Addendum 9:50 PM CST
I had time to think more on this while watching TV. If you filled out the 4473 (yellow paper) and answered "No" to the part about whether you were under a court order when their may be one in effect then you may have committed another felony by trying to buy the firearm. Dig through the paperwork fast and look for anything that looks like a restraining or protective order and study what it says. If there is anything about you being abusive in your relationship then you have something that needs to be cleared up fast if not sooner. I don't mean to shout but, "GET IN TOUCH WITH YOUR DIVORCE ATTORNEY AND REVIEW ALL COURT DECISIONS."
Peter W. Wickham, Jr.
AKA The Ol' Grey Ghost
Also, if you do get this situation resolved, and you get a gun, I would recommend that you join the Gun Owners of America (www.gunowners.org). They are the only gun group who is fighting against the Lautenberg Amendment. Maybe because of examples like this, people will see that Lautenberg and people like him (or her or it, I'm not sure) are not going for the goal of stopping criminals from owning guns; they are trying to stop normal people from owning guns. They obviously think it is okay to look back 20+ years in the past for misdomeanors with enough shock value to remove your rights.
Good luck.
I am not familiar with how the ATF follows up on cases where persons have been turned down. You are more than likely a blip on the radar screen now. You were able to walk out of the gunshop so the dealer doesn't appear to be "freaking" over the matter and you didn't get a gun that day (supposedly the "good" part about these checks; Hinkley would still have been able to purchase his .22 he shot Reagan with under current disqualifiers) so I don't see a rush on anyone's part at this point. Again, transfer your current arsenal to a relative who is not disqualified himself so that it cannot be confiscated at a later date (even if you are cleared of any charges, confiscated firearms tend to disappear in the possession of the ATF) and remember that any prosecutor has to prove you knowingly and intentionally tried to break the law.
Best advice I have at the moment and I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV and I haven't stayed in one of those motels lately (just a little levity to calm the matter).
Who better to protect the people than the people themselves.
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"
1/8/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
3/6/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Does anyone know what happens to this bill next? It's been sitting in this Subcommittee for over a year now with nothing done. I've contacted the Chairman of this committee with no response.
Here is a few good websites to check out concerning Gun Bans and the Lautenberg amendment. Very interesting articles!
[url][/url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085844-8119r.htm
[url][/url]http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=1400731
I'm personally filling out a "Petition to Expunge Court Record of Adjudication/Recommendation of District Attorney" and submitting it to the DA in the county I was convicted in. If expunged, I'm not sure if my rights will be restored since it's already in the NICS System. I've got to start someplace!
Now that I've found this forum, I'll help with questions and post / offer as much help as I can. I'm not a pro at all this but certainly part of a solution to this 2nd Amendment infringement!
Usakokomo
I fly planes, work with the public on a daily basis but can not own a firearm. What is this country coming too!! If I supposedly can't be trusted with a gun, whats next?
I'm venting - I hope someone is listening, our government isn't!
I am not a legal expert, so I'd like you to contact a lawyer. If you need a pro-gun lawyer check out the jpfo's Faq http://jpfo.org/faq.htm#faq04.
Also check out the GOA www.gunowners.org
Our government is slowly taking our rights and winning at it.
You are quite right in that statement.
It is not that this is a low key issue, it is just that there is not a strong enough concentrated effort to fight it. It effects more people than most realize, then some, like you, are just finding out about it, YEARS later. As with most crazy laws, if it does not effect the populous, they will say nothing to stop it.
The "retroactive" part is what is killing people. One sometimes cops a plea or plea bargains, based on the penalties of that conviction AT THAT TIME. How can anyone accept them coming back YEARS later, enacting a brand NEW law that ADDS penalties to a case that has been CLOSED for YEARS???
When this law was enacted, I thought there would be an uproar about it. Instead all I heard were some low grumbling. The sheeple did not realize at the time exactly what it meant. They do now, or at least, some do. But the time to put up any worthwhile effort to stop it, is long past I am afraid. Kind of like any new gun laws. If there is not a sunset clause in it, you will play hell getting rid of it.
Some of us ARE listening, but with so MANY fronts to fight, we have to pick our battles too. Keep us posted, I for one, would LOVE to hear of someone that "beat the system." Good luck.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
ALERT: The new Congress has just started warming their seats filled with more pro-gun members, and we're already getting the chance to show our unified support for some great legislation -- starting with a bill that strongly supports our Second Amendment rights.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has introduced a bill protecting the right of law-abiding Americans to use guns in self-defense.
HR 47, the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act", would specifically protect the right of law-abiding citizens to use handguns, rifles and shotguns in defending themselves, their families or their homes. It would also allow people whose self-defense rights have been violated by any government entity to bring legal action in federal court.
Remember the news stories over the last couple of years, about husbands, wives, fathers and mothers who were arrested after shooting home-invaders, because the "homeowner" possessed a firearm for protecting their family? This bill could put an END to that kind of nonsense.
Let's join together to push through this common-sense gun rights legislation NOW!
TAKE ACTION: Tens of millions of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans voted in November to protect and restore our gun rights.
Now is the time to really sock it to the anti-gun media, entertainment personalities, and the political lapdogs who try to work their wretched will to destroy our Second Amendment."
HR 47 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. We must NOT let it get stuck there -- we need to let Congress know that we want SWIFT consideration of this bill! Call, email and write to your Representative, asking him or her to support HR 47, the "Citizens' Self-Defense Act" today.
You can use the following link http://www.house.gov/writerep/ to find out who your member of Congress is and write or call them.
< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >
Copyright c 2005 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved.
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Voice: 425-454-4911
Toll Free: 800-426-4302
FAX: 425-451-3959
standup and inform your reps that this exists and that you expect them to support and pass it.
You can also join the fight by signing up for free e-mail alerts at [url][/url]http://www.gunowners.org/
Usakokomo
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
It seems to me that the Lautenburg Amendment should challenged, and thrown out for its unconstitutionality. Call me naive, but has any liar, excuse me, I mean lawyer, ever tried this approach?
Fitz
What about Article I. Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution?:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
It seems to me that the Lautenburg Amendment should challenged, and thrown out for its unconstitutionality. Call me naive, but has any liar, excuse me, I mean lawyer, ever tried this approach?
Fitz
Yes, and it was upheld.
Fitz
You Can't Buy a Gun, What Can You Do?
an interview with Attorney & Author Cindy Hill
Interview in MP3 format
JPFO Interview Questions
Q1. What is a Brady Denial?
A1. A Brady Denial is what most folks have come to call the situation where a person goes in and has the background check done which is required under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act before they buy a gun, and the background check comes back saying that the gun dealer can not sell them the gun.
The way that works is like this: When a person goes to buy a firearm from a federally licensed gun dealer in the United States, he or she has to fill out a form called an ATF 4473 at the counter of the gun shop. That form provides information such as name, address, social security number, what kind of gun is being purchased, and so on. The form also includes questions about whether you have criminal convictions and are a U.S. citizen. The person trying to buy the gun has to swear that all the answers on the form are true, and if the answers aren't true, he or she can be charged with the crime of perjury, which is lying under oath. Then the gun dealer makes a phone call, depending on the state that'll be to either a state agency number or the FBI's National Instant Check system, and the info from the form will be run through millions of records in state and federal databases to see if the person trying to buy the gun meets one of nine different categories of reasons for which federal law would prohibit thm from being in possession of a firearm.
Now, those nine categories of reasons why a person can't have a gun under federal law aren't new, they are part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, though some of them have been added more recently. But the requirement of having the background check first, before purchasing a gun, is relatively new, and all these millions of records that are getting loaded into these databases is a pretty new phenomenon, so thousands of people who have had guns all their lives and never realized they were supposed to be prohibited under one of these nine categories of the federal gun control law are suddenly in for a rude surprise when they go to buy a new gun.
Q2. Who gets Brady denials?
A2. Most of the media, and certainly most gun control advocates, would have you believe that the only people getting Brady denials are hardened violent criminals, who, they'd like you to think, are nasty evil people. Now, unfortunately, there are a few of those out there, but believe me, after twenty years of doing criminal defense law and representing hundreds or thousands of criminal defendants, I can tell you that the characatures of evil criminals are very few and far between, and very, very few of those are trying to lawfully purchase a firearm through a licensed firearm dealer, providing accurate information and legal identification on their background check forms.
The fact is that the people getting Brady denials are those who usually had no idea whatsoever that something in their background would leave them prohibited by federal law from having a gun. A typical example of folks I've represented would be a guy in his fifties who didn't realize that an incident he'd been involved in on his eighteenth birthday, where he and some buddies got drunk and stole someone's lawn ornament and wound up going to court the next day, had really counted as a felony conviction. The fact that the guy might have never had so much as a traffic ticket since, is a good family man, a good employee, contributes to his community, doesn't matter to the Brady system; as far as they are concerned, he's one of those hardened criminals, a convicted felon trying to get away with buying a gun.
Q3. Do these Brady background checks ever make mistakes?
A3. You betcha! In addition to these ridiculous denials which have the impact of disarming a large segment of our population who are in fact today perfectly respectable citizens even if they have a past incident that results in them being on the denial list, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who receive Brady denials purely by accident, because they have a similar name or date of birth to someone else who is on the denial list. Not coincidentally, this happens to awful lot with people who have 'non-Anglo' names, such as hispanic or middle eastern names, where the person looking at the data base is ignorant of how these names work or thinks they all sound alike. Over 100,000 people every year get Brady denials, and many of those are just plain mistakes.
Q4. You said there were nine different categories of reasons why someone can be prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal gun control laws. But the only one of these we usually hear about is convicted felons. Tell us about those criminal convictions that will land you a Brady denial.
A4. We usually just do hear about the category that's often called, innaccurately, 'felon in possession'. It's true that the biggest category of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms are those with a criminal conviction; however, the federal definition of what criminal convictions count is very, very confusing, even to attorneys who are practicing in this field. Many felony convictions in fact don't prohibit a person from possessing a firearm, even if the person served a jail sentence. Most white collar business crimes, for instance, don't 'count', so people who rip off millions in pension funds or commit security fraud can still own their $25,000 shotguns and go grouse hunting. I'm sorry to sound so cynical about that, and I'm sure there are some perfectly nice rich people out there who happen to have white collar crime convictions, but federal gun control law is thick with classist and racist overtones, and this is just one of the most blatant examples of it. Rip off a lawn ornament as a kid being a little overboisterous, and get threatened with federal prison for trying to buy a new deer rifle; commit a white collar crime that devastates hundreds of working joes, hey, no problem, have all the guns you want. But that's just one of my pet peeves.
Other felony convictions that don't count include those where someone has gotten a pardon, if you had a deferral arrangement where the conviction was later set aside, or, if you live in a state where some of your rights were taken away when you were convicted, and then those rights were restored to you, such as the right to vote, then the conviction no longer counts for federal firearms prohibitions. Get convicted for the same thing in Vermont where we decently don't take away any rights upon conviction, and the conviction counts for the rest of your life. Rather ironic.
Then, another irony is that many state misdemeanors also count as felonies for purposes of the federal gun control statute. If the state misdemeanor has a potential jail sentence of two years or more, the federal gun control statute counts it to prohibit you from having a gun. This includes a lot of state DUI, assault, and drug convictions.
So just on that one category alone, there's a lot of confusion.
Another large category for denials is misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence. This is really taking many people by surprise, as records of things that were treated as very minor incidents decades ago are suddenly popping up and causing Brady denials. A third category related to this is anyone who has a pending family court stay away order. This causes a lot of surprise Brady denials simply because court records often don't note when these stay-away orders expire. And a fourth category that's related to the criminal ones is that of fugitive from justice. If you've got a warrant out for you somewhere - even if it's for an unpaid traffic ticket you got while on vacation in a distant state and forgot to pay - you are a fugitive from justice and will get a Brady denial
So all four of these categories - felony convictions, misdemeanor domestic assault convictions, and family court stay away orders, have to do with court records, and depending on the state and the court, these records can be very confusing or inaccurate, especially with older records that were handwritten, kept on little index cards that are unreadable.
Q5. So if only four of the nine categories had to do with court records, I take it the other five have nothing to do with criminal convictions?
A5. That's right, and even a lot of gun owners I know are surprised by this. The other categories for denial include a dishonorable discharge from the military, being an illegal alien, or renouncing your U.S. citizenship.
Then there's a very troubling one, which is being a 'known user of illegal drugs'. This particular category doesn't require any criminal conviction or proof of any kind, it relies on the opinion of your local law enforcement, and I've talked to at least two guys who received this denial, with no criminal record, because they had pony tails and Harley Davidsons so their local police chiefs assumed they were pot smokers.
Another category which is increasingly becoming a problem is that related to mental incompetence. Last year the Veterans Administration uploaded thousands of records of primarily Vietnam era vets into the brady background check databases, and the suspicion is that military discharges on the grounds of mental health issues are going to start being used as grounds for brady denials. These things raise all kinds of issues about the privacy of mental health records, about just how far the government is going to go in disarming people who seek mental health counseling for temporary problems like depression associated with a job loss, and so on.
So these five categories have nothing to do with criminal convictions at all. Many people without a single criminal conviction have been disarmed by federal gun control.
Q6. So why a book about Brady Denials?
A6. Well, every year, of the 100,000 people who get a Brady Denial, many of them are simple mistakes of identity and should be promptly overturned. More importantly, of those Brady Denials that are based on actual incidents that the folks running the background check databases say meet one of these nine categories of prohibition under federal gun control, if you take the time to check into the details, many of these are also erroneous and should be overturned. And of those that are accurate, that is, for people who really do have an incident in their past that meets one of these nine categories, there are also lots of ways for people to go back and try to remove those things from their records.
But most people so far are not pursuing these options. Many are afraid of bringing more attention to themselves and raising red flags to government law enforcement agencies. Although I can understand that, on many levels it's just not right. And just like getting a denial of coverage from a health insurance company, many people think that the denial must be correct and don't think about pursuing and appeal or some other avenue to get it overturned. So thousands of American citizens are accepting being disarmed when they don't have to be.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, all these federal prohibitions on gun ownership, are troubling enough when you look at them; but over all these years, this law has been applied with a lot of discretion on the part of law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. In a lot of rural areas, no one has bothered a guy with a hunting rifle even if he was technically not supposed to have one, as long has he didn't do something improper or dangerous. Now, admittedly, this level of discretion has it's downsides - many times this law was applied in a racist or classist manner, like a lot of criminal laws. But now it's come back to bite everybody. With the Brady background checks and the Bush Administration's Project Safe Neighborhoods promising 100% enforcement of the gun laws that are on the books, I suspect that something close to half the adult men in this country could well find themselves disarmed, and that disarmament, given the skewed nature of our criminal justice system, is likely to have a heavy racial bias to it.
So I'd love to see our nation and Congress revisit the Gun Control Act, but something tells me that's not real likely to happen soon. In the meantime, I'd like to see gun owners, who are generally so fond of their rights and vocal about them, being assertive about putting the government to the test on Brady denials by appealing the denials and challenging them in court whenever possible. And when it got to the point where I was overwhelmed with phone calls from folks from all over the country asking me what they could do about their Brady denial, I decided this book was the best way to let people who'd gotten denials, and their lawyers, know what their options are. And Paladin Press has been real enthusiastic about the book, and is being a great help in getting it out there.
Q7. So if someone gets a Brady Denial, what should they do?
A7. First, don't panic, and try not to get angry. The guy behind the counter at the gun store doesn't now the reason for your denial, and would love to sell you the gun if he could, but he can't. You'll need to get some information from him including a transaction number and the contact information for where to write to get the statement of reasons for your denial. When you get home, write that letter - clear, brief, and polite - asking for the statement of reasons for the denial. Then - this is important - you need to know that getting a Brady denial means it's illegal for you to be in possession of any firearms, even those you already own at home. If you want to avoid possible seizure and forfeiture of your guns, get them into storage with either an FFL or a friend or relative who you know is legal to possess firearms and who agrees to hold them and not let you have them until your situation is resolved. Once you get your guns safe and receive the statement of reasons for your denial, you should get a copy of this Brady Denial book and hire a local lawyer who is familiar with the field of law related to the reason for your denial - criminal defense if it's a criminal conviction, mental health law if it's due to a mental incompetency issue, and so on. If your lawyer wants to, they can contact me for a consultation regarding your Brady denial case, by emailing me at lawyerhill@yahoo.com. But even without doing that, this book should give you and your lawyer a good idea of the range of options available to you to either appeal your Brady denial, challenge it in federal court, or fix the underlying problem that caused the denial.
Now, not everyone can overturn their Brady denial, obviously, but many people can, one way or another, if they are persistent enough. It is certainly worth getting the statement of reasons for your denial, taking a look at this book, and at least having an attorney look the matter over, as it may not only help you out, but help stop the government from illegally disarming yourself and others in your position.
Q8. And where can folks get the book?
A8. They can order online from Paladin Press at www.paladin-press.com.
[8D]