18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(9), and prohibits a person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence from shipping or transporting or receiving any firearm or ammunition, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(9). Section 921(a)(23) of the GCA defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,"
in pertinent part, as "[a]n offense that . . . (1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and . .
. (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force . . . committed by a current or
former spouse . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(23)(A). 12 C.F.R. § 178.11 states a nearly identical
definition.
in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge.
In most jurisdictions, a no-contest plea is considered the same as a guilty plea for most purposes.JERRY said:in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge.
but assaulting a female is a serious matter.?
Care to provide some citations? And is it your contention that is universally the case?JERRY said:yes but a no contest plea allows for first offender status and setting aside the conviction after a period of time.
If this is something in Georgia, what does it have to do with livinglife's situation? He is apparently a resident of Pennsylvania. And what does it have to do with disqualification from gun possession under federal law (18 USC 922(g)(9))?JERRY said:Im not sure what you mean by citations but in georgia a first offense domestic violence charge where the victim doesnt want to press to prosecute and there is no sunstancial injury, the offender can ask for and usually gets first offender status...
That might perhaps be true -- but only in Georgia and only if some very specific and narrow conditions have been met:JERRY said:...as i understand it he is not a prohibited person by federal law....
JERRY said:...in georgia a first offense domestic violence charge where the victim doesnt want to press to prosecute and there is no sunstancial injury, the offender can ask for and usually gets first offender status (if victim agrees, or refuses to testify),; resulting in a fine, anger management and substance abuse classes if booze or drugs were involved.....upon completion of the classes and payment of the fine before one year has passed, the charge is dropped.
Still shows an arrest on the cch but the charge will be "nol pros". no this is not universal....
JERRY said:in hind sight you should have plead no contest to the d c charge.
JERRY said:yes but a no contest plea allows for first offender status and setting aside the conviction after a period of time.
Should there be a mechanism to regain one's right to own a firearm? Maybe so.
There are many mechanisms for relief from a firearms disability. A grant of relief by ATF was just one way of many, and yes that has been stopped by Congress since 1992, but there are other avenues to seek relief.There is, it's written into the Federal law. It remains unfunded however, so there is no way out for people who find themselves Prohibited.Should there be a mechanism to regain one's right to own a firearm? Maybe so.
Time to write your elected Congressman, and Senator. The squeaky wheel gets greased.
Copy and paste this letter.
There are many mechanisms for relief from a firearms disability. A grant of relief by ATF was just one way of many, and yes that has been stopped by Congress since 1992, but there are other avenues to seek relief.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry...top-10-qas.pdf
"8. I have been convicted of a felony. How do I reinstate my rights to possess a firearm?
Persons who have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), are prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Felons whose convictions have been set-aside or expunged, or for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored are not considered convicted under section 922(g)(1), unless that person was expressly prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from possessing firearms. Persons convicted of a State offense should contact the State Attorney General’s Office in the State in which they reside and the State of the conviction for information concerning State and local firearms restrictions, and any alternatives that may be available, such as a gubernatorial pardon or civil rights restoration.
If your conviction is for a Federal offense, you would regain the ability to lawfully receive, possess, or transport firearms if you receive a Presidential pardon. You can find additional information about such pardons by contacting the Office of the Pardon Attorney online at www.usdoj.gov/pardon/.
The GCA includes a provision that gives ATF authority to grant relief from Federal firearms disabilities. 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). However, since 1992, ATF’s annual Congressional appropriation has prohibited ATF from expending any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon such applications for relief."
__________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather, Barry Goldwater
Attacking Lautenberg by downplaying the seriousness of domestic violence is not a strategem that is likely to get much traction.
I think a more viable attack on Lautenberg would go after it from other angles:
A) As was noted up thread, Lautenberg, like the death penalty, is not evenly applied. In those borderline kind of DV situations where the crime is pretty minor, poor persons are more likely to have DV criminal convictions than those who can afford decent lawyers. (i.e. Lautenberg is prejudiced against the poor and against minorities who are likely to receive harsher sentences than white Americans for the same offense)
B) DV households can be a back and forth situation and occasionally the circumstances on the ground are understood at the time by law enforcement such that a person who is normally a victim may be found to be the aggressor in one isolated incident. That person also loses their firearms rights forever, even if they may be subsequently stalked and pursued by a violent partner. (i.e. Lautenberg has the potential to make make women victims, despite its core intent)
C) -- And this is a kind of specialized one, but our military is large enough that it effects a lot of people -- Because Lautenberg is this cast iron kicker for military service, it sometimes actually encourages abused partners of service members not to report domestic violence, because if they report it the household's primary source of income is gone. From what I've seen, it also can encourage chains of command to pressure abused spouses to not report or even cover up DV crimes. (i.e. again, unintended consequences.)
Arguing Lautenberg from a standpoint that can be bumper-stickered down to "c'mon, he just smacked her around a little" isn't going to play well -- and that's how it's going to be distilled by the opponents of its repeal.
HorseSoldier is offline Report Post Quick reply to this message