I just became aware of a strange application of the Lautenberg amendment that expands the definition of domestic violence. It may well be in effect in your jurisdiction.
Background: my friend and his wife get into a drunken, mutual hollering and pushing match (no injuries to either), "victim" wife calls police, friend is charged with domestic violence. His solid defenses, and a now sober and uncooperative "victim" (she can't remember anything that happened; all they have is her inconsistent and contradictory "excited utterance" statement to police and the 911 call) forced prosecutor to back off; friend accepted plea agreement to disturbing the peace to get things over with and not put wife through "trauma" of a jury trial. Shortly after, he gets a letter from the Ada County (Idaho) Sheriff's office stating that his CCW permit is revoked because he is no longer eligible to possess a firearm under federal law.
And no, I did not represent him in that matter.
Get this: BATF and USDOJ guidance on Lautenberg states that "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence means an offense that: (1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and (2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force ...committed by a current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim...." Ok so far? Well, Idaho's disturbing the peace statute reads as follows:
The sheriff's office has determined that this statute is a "physical force statute" and that because the disturbance in my friend's case involved him and his wife, his disturbing the peace conviction brings him under the purview of the Lautenberg amendment. Apparently, this has been happening for the last year or so in every disturbing the peace case between household members, and particularly when there was originally a domestic violence charge that has been reduced for whatever reason.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Lautenberg only prohibit firearm possession in cases where a person has been convicted of assault, battery, domestic assault, or domestic battery - where there was a perpetrator committing an unlawful act on an unwilling partner/spouse victim? I could see the Sheriff's position (MAYBE) if there was threatening involved, but doesn't the mutuality of fighting or quarreling eliminate the roles of perpetrator and victim? And isn't the "victim" in Idaho's disturbing the peace statute a neighborhood or third parties -- none of whom are a spouse or partner under Lautenberg?
It's my view that the Sheriff's office is stretching this way too far; what are your thoughts? Does this occur in your jurisdictions? Anyone aware of any case law on the subject?
At any rate, you may want to find out how your jurisdiction treats this, both on the local and federal levels, and watch out for fellow gun owners who may be in this sticky situation. I'm going to try to help my friend out in any way I can, because he truly is a good guy and the only shooting buddy I really have, and would appreciate your thoughts before I dive in.
Background: my friend and his wife get into a drunken, mutual hollering and pushing match (no injuries to either), "victim" wife calls police, friend is charged with domestic violence. His solid defenses, and a now sober and uncooperative "victim" (she can't remember anything that happened; all they have is her inconsistent and contradictory "excited utterance" statement to police and the 911 call) forced prosecutor to back off; friend accepted plea agreement to disturbing the peace to get things over with and not put wife through "trauma" of a jury trial. Shortly after, he gets a letter from the Ada County (Idaho) Sheriff's office stating that his CCW permit is revoked because he is no longer eligible to possess a firearm under federal law.
And no, I did not represent him in that matter. Get this: BATF and USDOJ guidance on Lautenberg states that "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence means an offense that: (1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and (2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force ...committed by a current or former spouse, parent or guardian of the victim...." Ok so far? Well, Idaho's disturbing the peace statute reads as follows:
The sheriff's office has determined that this statute is a "physical force statute" and that because the disturbance in my friend's case involved him and his wife, his disturbing the peace conviction brings him under the purview of the Lautenberg amendment. Apparently, this has been happening for the last year or so in every disturbing the peace case between household members, and particularly when there was originally a domestic violence charge that has been reduced for whatever reason.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Lautenberg only prohibit firearm possession in cases where a person has been convicted of assault, battery, domestic assault, or domestic battery - where there was a perpetrator committing an unlawful act on an unwilling partner/spouse victim? I could see the Sheriff's position (MAYBE) if there was threatening involved, but doesn't the mutuality of fighting or quarreling eliminate the roles of perpetrator and victim? And isn't the "victim" in Idaho's disturbing the peace statute a neighborhood or third parties -- none of whom are a spouse or partner under Lautenberg?
It's my view that the Sheriff's office is stretching this way too far; what are your thoughts? Does this occur in your jurisdictions? Anyone aware of any case law on the subject?
At any rate, you may want to find out how your jurisdiction treats this, both on the local and federal levels, and watch out for fellow gun owners who may be in this sticky situation. I'm going to try to help my friend out in any way I can, because he truly is a good guy and the only shooting buddy I really have, and would appreciate your thoughts before I dive in.
If a doctor, pharmaceutical company or lawn mower company failed to give a similar warning and full, informed consent, they would be liable for the lifetime handicap.
