Lautenberg Amendment

[Iraqgunz]

I would really like to hear from some of our legal eagles that frequent M4Carbine. I am having a hrd time wrapping my head around the whole Lautenberg thing especially in light of a recent case in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It seems to me that the whole thing about the law being retroactive is unconstitutional. To me it has denied people due process because they plead guilty to a crime of domestic violence (whether it truly was or not) and accepted their punishment at the time. Then xxxx amount of years later comes a law that now imposes a new punishment which just happens to be a constitutional right. I am posting a link to the most recent case. Can some of our legal experts explain why this has not been succesfully challenged?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/19/taking_liberties/entry5711496.shtml

[kmrtnsn]

When it comes to retroactive laws, you cannot take a past act that is not illegal and make a law making the act illegal the punish someone for the prevision transgression. For example, if it was legal in 2008, then made illegal in 2009, you cannot charge someone for doing whatever back in 2008 now. The difference here is that they are applying convictions, not previous uncharged acts. As for the Lautenberg Amendment, I think it is overly broad. I think the definition of misdemeanor act of domestic violence should be more narrowly defined.

[ToddG]

The short answer is that technically, the disbarment from purchase of firearms is not a punishment in legal terms. It's a regulation of who can purchase a certain item, not a penalty imposed upon a specific person for a specific act.

[Palmguy]

The short answer is that technically, the disbarment from purchase of firearms is not a punishment in legal terms. It's a regulation of who can purchase a certain item, not a penalty imposed upon a specific person for a specific act.

Certainly doesn't sound like a deprivation of liberty conducted with due process of law if you ask me. I'm not a lawyer though...just an engineer.

I'd also say that specific person would be inclined to consider it a penalty.

Disclaimer: I understand there is a difference between the way things are and the way things should be...and I concede I'm talking about the latter.

[ToddG]

I think it's a bad law. If it happened to me, I'd certainly consider it a "penalty." Hell, it would flat out ruin my career. But legally speaking, it's not a penalty imposed on someone as part of a sentence. Same thing happens with child predator/sex offender notifications, etc. It may have deleterious effects on the convicted, but it's not technically a punishment and thus ex post facto does not apply.

[GermanSynergy]

I don't think people should lose their RKBA over a misdemeanor (in most cases). I've seen plenty of abuse of this law while in the military, esp with a spouse with an axe to grind against his/her spouse. Call the MP's, make up a story to get hubby/wife into hot water with their command, and BAM- spouse is a prohibited person for life.

I've seen soldiers "Lautenberged" over petty squables, even in some cases where there was no physical contact between the two parties.

Bad law.

[glocktogo]

It isn't a retroactive punishment, but now that the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, I would consider it a civil rights violation. I sure hope someone files a suit in federal court on it now.

[Iraqgunz]

Todd,

Thanks for helping to clarify. The issue as I see it is that you are taking away a constitutional right from an individual when all the facts may not have been present at the time. How many people probably took a plea bargain based on some lawyers advice (it's no big deal we'll get you some counseling or community service) only to get nailed 5, 10, 20 years down the road with "turn in your weapons" because of this new law?

When we are talking about people losing jobs, careers, and personal property that sure sounds like punishment to me.

Based on the 7th Court decision and the pending case before SCOTUS do you foresee this law possibly going away?


I think it's a bad law. If it happened to me, I'd certainly consider it a "penalty." Hell, it would flat out ruin my career. But legally speaking, it's not a penalty imposed on someone as part of a sentence. Same thing happens with child predator/sex offender notifications, etc. It may have deleterious effects on the convicted, but it's not technically a punishment and thus ex post facto does not apply.

[ToddG]

IG -- Do I think it should go away? Absolutely.

Do I think it will be challenged post-Heller? Yes.

Do I think it will be found an unconstitutional restriction on the RKBA? Don't know, but I'd bet against it.

Presently, we don't know what level of scrutiny SCOTUS intends to apply to 2A decisions. Part of the interplay between Justices during McDonald was about whether states and localities would inherit all 2A jurisprudence or just the basic concept. What that's really about (IMHO) is the Court determining whether it needs to establish the level of scrutiny now in McDonald (because states will need to use that level of scrutiny) or whether they can avoid that question altogether and, at least for the time being, let states figure it out on their own.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the post ex facto part of Lautenberg isn't really an issue. Either it's constitutional to limit gun possession from domestic abusers, or it's not. If domestic abusers fall within a class that SCOTUS feels can justifiably be denied RKBA, and SCOTUS feels that Lautenberg reasonably defines that term, then Lautenberg stands.

[armakraut]

It is my sincere hope that the people who wrote and enforced these illegal and unconstitutional laws live long enough to be charged as enemy combatants, then hauled before a court that actually cares about right and wrong.

If you aren't currently in jail...

There are no legal gun laws.

There are no legal ex-post-facto laws.