GCA of 1968 and misdemeanor domestic violence Q's

[Lennyjoe]

Just noticed that 18 U.S.C. 922 makes it a felony for anyone who has been conviced of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship, transport,possess, or recieve firearms or ammunition.

My question is, I was under the impression that you cannot own firearms if you were convicted of a felony crime. Didn't know anything about the misdemeanor. Must be the whole domestic violence thing.

Also, some states arrest both parties if they have to respond to a domestic violence call. If your arrested and charged with the misdemeanor then I guess you have to get rid of your firearms?

Scenerio; Say I go home and tell my wife I had enough and want a divorce. She starts hitting me and I stand there and take it. No one else is around to witness the one sided stomping, but the neighbors can hear the commotion and call the cops. If I'm in a state where they take both parties to jail and get tagged with the misdemeanor crime that pretty much ruins my ability to hunt, shoot or defend myself in the future. Is this correct?

Disclamer; I am not in the situation noted above so don't worry about me. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[LAR-15]

This is due to the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996 IIRC.

Enjoy your muzzleloader!

 

[Jeff White]

Yes, you've pretty much got the gist of the infamous Lautenberg Amdendment to the GCA-68. Want to know something else, the law is retroactive, so if you were convicted 30 years before that legislation was enacted in the early 90s, you've lost your RKBA. I guess the constitutional protection against ex-post-facto legislation doesn't count in this case.

Jeff

 

[Car Knocker]

Also, some states arrest both parties if they have to respond to a domestic violence call. If your arrested and charged with the misdemeanor then I guess you have to get rid of your firearms?

Scenerio; Say I go home and tell my wife I had enough and want a divorce. She starts hitting me and I stand there and take it. No one else is around to witness the one sided stomping, but the neighbors can hear the commotion and call the cops. If I'm in a state where they take both parties to jail and get tagged with the misdemeanor crime that pretty much ruins my ability to hunt, shoot or defend myself in the future. Is this correct?

There's a world of difference between being arrested and charged with domestic violence, and being convicted of domestic violence.

 

[Old Dog]

Scenerio; Say I go home and tell my wife I had enough and want a divorce. She starts hitting me and I stand there and take it. No one else is around to witness the one sided stomping, but the neighbors can hear the commotion and call the cops. If I'm in a state where they take both parties to jail and get tagged with the misdemeanor crime that pretty much ruins my ability to hunt, shoot or defend myself in the future. Is this correct?

Yep. That's pretty much correct.

In a previous job, I was charged with investigating all the new folks being considered for assignment into military police/security units -- to ensure that they -- even though active duty military -- were not disqualified per Lautenberg from carrying firearms. I used to tell all my guys, if you're having a argument with the wife or girlfriend, and tempers get heated -- leave. Don't even risk a situation where law enforcement will respond to a D.V. call ... Too many guys had to be reassigned to desk jobs because of civilian D.V. convictions, even some cases where the guy was simply defending himself from a hostile woman ...

There's a world of difference between being arrested and charged with domestic violence, and being convicted of domestic violence.

In some states ... including this one ... the "victim" does not have to press charges -- the P.A.'s office does, even if the victim declines -- so if an arrest was made, and the case goes to trial, a conviction almost always results. Third degree DV in this state loses one the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

A Domestic Violence conviction will get you thrown out of the military as well. Thanks to the Lautenberg act.

 

[El Tejon]

Lenny, it depends.

Yes, there is a distinction between arrest and conviction. Just because you are arrested does not trigger Lautenberg, however there would likely be a condition of your bond that you are not to possess firearms or ammunition.

As well, it depends on what the crime you are convicted of is. The federal statute is specific as to the element of violence in the state conviction.

Under your scenario the answer to your question is no (just for the arrest).

HTH.

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

Most, if not all states prohibit felons from possessing firearms.

Federal law: Those convicted of domestic violence offenses cannot possess firearms. AND it doesn't matter if the conviction states DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. The feds will look at the circumstances themselves and decide.

But you can keep your muzzleloader under federal law. It is not defined as a firearm.

 

[docfubar]

Some states consider a muzzleloader a firearm after it is charged and primed.

 

[Cosmoline]

There's a world of difference between being arrested and charged with domestic violence, and being convicted of domestic violence.

There's also a huge difference between a civil DVRO and a criminal conviction of any kind. That said, many civil restraining orders include a prohibition on firearms--whether that's constitutional or not. They usually expire on their own after a year but will often still keep pinging in NICS

Another reason in a long, long list to avoid romantic involvement.

Also--a bench warrant alone can clog your ability to buy a firearm no matter how minor. I'm still getting delays from one issued two years ago over an unleashed dog citation!

 

[alan]

Regarding references made to The Lautenberg amendment, as it was originally known, and it's RETROACTIVITY, there is an interesting admonition/prohibition in the Constitution.

As I recall, it goes as follows: And The Congress shall make no EX POST FACTO LAW. Strikes me that among Lautenberg's other failings is the fact that it is as above mentioned AN EX POST FACTO LAW, which The Constitution forbids the enactment of, correct me if I'm wrong.

Re this, how did it come to be passed through BOTH HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS, and how come the judiciary has not yet deposited in on the nearest garbage heap?

Is one to assume that nobody has taken the thing to court, or has the court system, once again, opted to in effect say that The Constitution no longer matters?

 

[ArmedBear]

Here's the deal.

In my state, California, your wife has almost absolute power over you. Her accusation is as good as a conviction, if she sticks to it.

Unless you are a former all-star quarterback turned actor. Then you can beat the crap out of your wife on a regular basis, and the cops will consider it a "family matter", at least until your wife turns up dead. Then the cops will be accused of making the whole thing up.

 

[Old Fuff]

Alan:

Is one to assume that nobody has taken the thing to court, or has the court system, once again, opted to in effect say that The Constitution no longer matters?

I believe that this was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, and they found that the statute was legal...

 

[pete f]

if you were talking about OJ it was running back.

The other situation that arises is that often a TRO is automatically filed with a divorce proceeding. A good friend and his wife decided to separate after many years and both were hunters and shooters. It was decided that her lawyer would file the paperwork and lo and behold the next day two sheriffs showed up at his house with a court order to take his CCW permit and all of his firearms, and they took hers too. they just backed up the squad car and loaded them in the trunk. he sat on the step wearing handcuff watching engraved shotties and rifles getting tossed in to the trunk. WHY you ask, well her attorney decided that a TRO was necessary and never bothered to ask but just did it anyway. He had to go to the cty court house, go before a judge and beg to be removed from the TRO, even his wife, now ex went to the judge and said he never was upset or angry but rather just the opposite and it was her attorney who did it. They had to get a rather lenghty list of witnesses to vouch that there had never been any sign of domestic violence untill finally six month later (even though the TRO had expired in 90 days) he was able to get the TRO anulled. That was the only way to get his rights restored. and he was denied three times by NICS even after filing a listing of the judges order with them.

This law needs to be overturned. This should be the NRA'a push next. Conviction of a serious case of domestic abuse should stop your rights. But just being accused should not be a punishable offense.

 

[ArmedBear]

if you were talking about OJ it was running back.
.

My mistake.

By the time I was old enough to pay attention to those sorts of details, he was an actor.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If the leftist extremists get their way, even a speeding ticket will disqualify you for life from exercising your Second Amendment civil rights.

Do you think they made the domestic violence exception by accident?

 

[Thefabulousfink]

However, if you murder some one in cold blood ( even with an EVIL firearm) you should still have the right to vote. :banghead:

 

[Gunfire]

Regarding references made to The Lautenberg amendment, as it was originally known, and it's RETROACTIVITY, there is an interesting admonition/prohibition in the Constitution.

As I recall, it goes as follows: And The Congress shall make no EX POST FACTO LAW. Strikes me that among Lautenberg's other failings is the fact that it is as above mentioned AN EX POST FACTO LAW, which The Constitution forbids the enactment of, correct me if I'm wrong.

Re this, how did it come to be passed through BOTH HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS, and how come the judiciary has not yet deposited in on the nearest garbage heap?

Is one to assume that nobody has taken the thing to court, or has the court system, once again, opted to in effect say that The Constitution no longer matters?

'They' ruled taking your 2nd amendment rights was not a punishment so it doesn't violate the Constitution and thus is not ex post facto.

That's what we get for electing lawyers as politicians. They mind???? the english langauge so nobody knows what they are saying but the stupid half of the country believes them when they say "'trust me', "it's for your own good". "You will be much safer now".

 

[Gunfire]

If the leftist extremists get their way, even a speeding ticket will disqualify you for life from exercising your Second Amendment civil rights.

Do you think they made the domestic violence exception by accident?

It has already started! Don't get caught urinating on the side of the road or picking up a hooker. All sex crimes will soon get your RTBA revoked ex post facto. RETROACTIVE forever!!

 

[Jeff White]

Gunfire,
I think you're jumping the gun just a bit. Can you show me some legislation that is being debted anywhere to do that?

Urinating on the side of the road isn't a sex crime in many places. Here in Illinois, the worst you could be charged with is Disorderly Conduct.

Right now the city of St Louis MO is contemplating changing their municple code to remove public urination from the list of sex crimes.

Jeff

 

[Lennyjoe]

So, if I ever decide to divorce the other half I should remove all the guns to a safe house before breaking the news?

Thanks for all the replies.

 

[mec]

"...Another reason in a long, long list to avoid romantic involvement."
Those who do successfully persue romantic involvement are to be admired and envied but there are potential pitfalls.

One local guy I knew got hauled in based on his wife's insistance that he had threatened to kill her and had beat her up. The charges went away when her story proved full of contridictions.

One thing to Really Avoid is sending away for a bride to one of those countries that have a lot of women wanting to immigrate. The expect the American fiancee to be rich and many times things go along fine as long as he is. When however, the woman finds her husband NOT to be rich and often pretty wierd in the balance, things happen. I know of two who simply went back to Kiev with no untoward sequellae. Some, however do not wish to leave. In the ordinary course of events, they would be forced to leave the US but not if they get down to the local police department and file Domestic Violence charges on the husband. She is then allowed to remain in the country and exercise other options pending resolution and the husband remains screwed, blued and tatoed into the forseeable future.

 

[Gunfire]

Gunfire,
I think you're jumping the gun just a bit. Can you show me some legislation that is being debted anywhere to do that?

Urinating on the side of the road isn't a sex crime in many places. Here in Illinois, the worst you could be charged with is Disorderly Conduct.

Right now the city of St Louis MO is contemplating changing their municple code to remove public urination from the list of sex crimes.

Jeff

Yes, you may be right but I could of swore I remember some legislation last yearthat didn't pass. I did find this one but it's just reclassifing juvenile felonies as a disability, which I think it should be. But I don't think any misdemeanors should disqualify. And you may be right about the relief on the side of the road thing too but I also heard that is a sex crime. Which I think is rediculous.

House 0761: Relating to Possession of Firearms/Weapons ------------------------------------------------------------------

H761 GENERAL BILL/1ST ENG by Wishner (Similar S 2660)
Possession of Firearms/Weapons; extends restriction against possessing
firearms, electric weapons or devices, or concealed weapons for certain
persons found to have committed delinquent acts involving forcible
felony offenses; expands circumstances in which criminal history records
of certain minors must be retained as part of adult record, etc.

 

[WillBrayJr]

As far as I know some states allow you to keep firearms despite a misdemeanor demestic violence conviction. I know Michigan allows a person to keep rifles and shotguns. Indiana I know for a fact allows a person to keep firearms. Stepfather has over 20 firearms legally with two demestic violence convictions. Yup the police knows he has firearms.

 

[Steelcore]

The Lautenburg Act passed both houses of Congess because it was tacked onto a Budget bill.If the budget bill wasn't passed,the government would have been shut down.The GOP did not want that to happen in and election year.(1996).