Feb. 1997


Analysis by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151


The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision was signed into law on September 30, 1996, as section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of the omnibus appropriations bill. It adds to the list of “prohibited persons” persons convicted of a “… misdemeanor involving domestic violence.”


If you become a prohibited person, you can never again own or acquire a firearm of any type. The only exception is if you are subsequently pardoned or otherwise have your criminal record expunged.


A misdemeanor is a crime carrying a potential penalty of as little as one day in jail, irrespective of whether the person serves actual jail time. In other words, the law imposes a lifetime gun ban on offenses which, in many cases, are very minor in nature.


The Lautenberg language defines “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include a misdemeanor that involves “the use or attempted use of physical force” against a family member. Hence, any actual or attempted violence against a spouse or son or daughter would certainly, if prosecuted successfully as a misdemeanor, subject you to a lifetime gun ban. In many jurisdictions, spanking your kids could result in a conviction which would prohibit you from ever again owning a firearm.


No. We have seen that a misdemeanor involving violence (however slight) or attempted violence against a spouse, son, or daughter would certainly be covered. But the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” goes on to include “the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” Thus, a threat against a family member would also subject the offender to a lifetime gun ban, even if the threat were joking or the person making the threat did not have the wherewithal to carry it out.


Yes. A misdemeanor committed fifty years ago would still subject an individual to a lifetime gun ban, even if he or she has lived a happily married life with the “victim” during the intervening period.


The law provides for no grace period. Technically, any newly created “prohibited person” is currently in danger of a felony conviction.


It means that, if you are a “prohibited person” and you are convicted of possessing a firearm, you will be guilty of a felony which could subject you to a $250,000 fine and a ten year prison sentence.


There is no exemption for law enforcement officials or members of the armed services. These persons, if they have been convicted of even minor misdemeanors against their spouses, will have to be disarmed and fired.


There is no exemption for battered women who received minor misdemeanor convictions after they used force to defend themselves against their battering spouses. There are many battered women who fall into this category. They will now be unable to use firearms to protect themselves against their abusive and threatening husbands, even if they feel that their lives are endangered.


Because the law now imposes lifetime gun bans on persons who, in some cases, have engaged in no actual violence or attempted violence, it will only be a matter of time before anti-gun activists try to impose lifetime guns bans in non-domestic situations of minor misdemeanors involving violence (such as fist fights). Ultimately, an effort to impose a lifetime gun ban on all persons convicted of misdemeanors will be made.

Back to Lautenberg Table
Back to 105th Congress Archive
Up to Home
Copyright, Contact and Credits

30 Responses to “THE LAUTENBERG LAW”

  1. patricksperry Says:

    Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban:
    Far-reaching gun ban puts federal government in your living room

    Text of Conference Report on H.R. 3610
    [CR page H-11743]


    (a) Definition.–Section 921(a) of title 18, United States
    Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    “(33)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term
    ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ means an offense that–

    “(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and

    “(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of
    physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,
    committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of
    the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child
    in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited
    with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a
    person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian
    of the victim.

    “(B)(i) A person shall not be considered to have been
    convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter,

    “(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or
    knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the
    case; and

    (II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in
    this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in
    the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either

    (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or

    (bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right
    to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise,

    “(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted
    of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction
    has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the
    person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the
    law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil
    rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or
    restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may
    not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”.


    (1) Section 922(d) of such title is amended–

    (A) by striking “or” at the end of paragraph (7);

    (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and
    inserting “; or”; and

    (C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:

    “(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
    of domestic violence.”.

    (2) Section 922(g) of such title is amended–

    (A) by striking “or” at the end of paragrph (7);

    (B) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (8) and
    inserting “; or”; and

    (C) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:

    “(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor
    crime of domestic violence,”.

    (3) Section 922(s)(3)(B)(i) of such title is amended by
    inserting “, and has not been convicted in any court of a
    misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” before this semicolon.

    (c) Government Entities Not Excepted.–Section 925(a)(1) of
    such title is amended by inserting “sections 922(d)(9) and
    922(g)(9) and” after “except for”.

    Congressional Record dated Saturday, September 28, 1996
    House Section


  2. patricksperry Says:

    Lautenberg Gun Ban Racking up the Horror Stories
    — Lifetime ban disarms unsuspecting parents, spouses

    A wife tears her husband’s pocket during an argument. A daughter throws keys at her mom – and misses. Both `assailants’ are arrested, fingerprinted and booked. Welcome to Virginia’s new zero tolerance of domestic violence.

    And welcome to some of the most recent victims of the Lautenberg gun ban.

    The Washington Post Magazine began its October 26, 1997 issue with the above quote. Page after page of examples showed how innocent men, women and children are becoming victims of the latest war against domestic violence.

    And unwittingly, the Post Magazine made it painfully clear how easy it is for honest citizens to lose their Second Amendment rights as a result of the Lautenberg domestic gun ban.

    The Lautenberg ban, passed in 1996, imposes a lifetime gun ban on those who have committed minor infractions in the home – “offenses” as slight as shoving a spouse or spanking a child.
    Chenoweth bill nets almost 40 cosponsors

    Gun Owners of America warned even before the gun ban passed how disastrous it would become. Unfortunately, these predictions have come true with a frightening accuracy.

    Many in Congress have ignored the effects of this pernicious law that they helped enact.

    But Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) – who voted against the Lautenberg ban – has shown again and again why she is one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment.

    She introduced H.R. 1009 early last year to repeal this law and has secured 37 cosponsors since then.

    Rep. Chenoweth continues to press on. But the Republican leadership has dragged its feet and shown no desire to push this legislation.

    As a result, the horror stories are flooding in.
    Torn pocket brings on Lautenberg sanctions

    Consider Judy of Fairfax County, Virginia.

    The slight tearing of her husband’s pocket last year was enough to cart her off to the police station – even though her husband refused to press charges.

    The husband, Tom, states he had only called the police to get “documentation in a custody dispute.”

    When Tom insisted he didn’t want to press charges, he was told that “pressing charges is not [your] decision, it is the decision of the commonwealth of Virginia.”

    Unfortunately, Virginia’s new “zero tolerance” requires police to press charges in such cases. Now, if and when Judy plea-bargains to a misdemeanor and pays a minimal fine, she will lose her Second Amendment rights forever.
    Daughter flings keys, loses rights

    The Washington Post Magazine also reported how a daughter was arrested, to the shock and horror of her parents, for throwing a set of keys near her mother.

    Twenty-one year old Lora, also of Virginia, lost her temper and flung an empty water bottle and her car keys.

    The water bottle landed on the front steps, but the keys fell near her mother.

    For that, Lora was arrested, booked, and told she must not have any contact with her mom for three days, even though she’s still living at home.

    As stated by the Post Magazine,

    In Lora’s case, there really is no question. In the eyes of the law, you don’t have to hit somebody to commit assault – all you have to do is try to hit them.

    Yet clearly, the rules have changed.

    Officer Mike Twomey, who assisted in the arrest, remarks that “in the old days, the proper response would have been to say, `hey, ladies, cool it.’ Now, arrest is the only option.”

    The Post Magazine reports that seven states plus the District of Columbia have mandatory arrest policies, and 26 others, including Maryland, have “presumptive arrest” policies that give officers a bit of discretion but still encourage them to make an arrest. Another 12 have laws that blend the two approaches.
    Lautenberg creating new victims

    With the Lautenberg gun ban in place, a new category of “victim” is emerging as a result of these tougher state laws – like the one in Virginia.

    “A lot of times, I think arrests are being made when they shouldn’t be,” says Kenneth E. Noyes, staff attorney and coordinator of the domestic violence project for Legal Services of Northern Virginia.

    He is not alone in this opinion.

    “I am stunned, quite frankly, because that was not the intention of the law,” says Judith Mueller of the Virginia-based Women’s Center.

    “It’s disheartening to think that it could be used punitively and frivolously. Frivolously being the operative word.”
    Dial 911; someone goes to jail

    Before the Lautenberg gun ban, most people involved in minor altercations would simply plea-bargain to a domestic violence misdemeanor, pay a small (say, $25) fine, and be on their way.

    But times are changing. Even the Post Magazine questioned whether every 911 call should end in an arrest. For example, what should the police do when:

    * A man calls 911 to report that his wife has destroyed his Mercedes with a ball- peen hammer and would like her, please, arrested?

    * A father calls to say that his son threw food at him, and now he would like the teenager, please, arrested?

    * A husband calls 911 to say that his wife slapped him with an open hand and he would like her, please, arrested?

    Under the new laws, all these “assailants” could spend a night in jail. The question is, do they really deserve to have a domestic violence misdemeanor on their record?

    And even more importantly, should they now lose their gun rights forever?

    It is true that the Lautenberg law allows for the restoration of rights following the expungement of the domestic violence record or an official pardon.

    But while this is true on paper, it rarely occurs in practice. As a rule, elected officials fear having to “stick their necks” out on what is considered to be a politically sensitive issue.

    Moreover, it is especially true that judges are reluctant to expunge the records of people who have since moved out of the county or the state.
    Spank your child, forfeit your guns

    Gun Owners of America reported last year how one GOA member – who probably represents scores of others – stepped forward to tell his horrific story.

    Many years ago, this father gave his child a swat on the rear. Because the father was going through an ugly divorce, his estranged wife, with the encouragement of her mother, reported the man to the police for child abuse.

    The father had spanked his daughter with an open hand on the buttocks. After a nasty court battle, the man finally accepted a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction.

    Now he is disarmed for life by the Lautenberg gun ban, simply because he spanked his child.

    Upon learning of the Lautenberg gun ban, this GOA member, seeking to be in compliance with the law, sold his collection of firearms. He has forfeited his Second Amendment rights, for simply spanking his own daughter.
    Lautenberg disarming people from all walks of life

    More recently, a Michigan woman made national news when her case went to trial for the same offense.

    Kathi Herren, 32, swatted her child in discipline. The result? She has now lost her Second Amendment rights because of that swat.

    “In today’s politically correct world, parents can’t even spank their children in public,” said GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt.

    “If you do, you could lose your right to protect your children — forever. That makes absolutely no sense at all.”

    Judge Brian MacKenzie announced that “he had no intention of sending her to jail.”

    And thus, the irony remains: despite serving no jail time, despite this being a very minor “offense,” Herren will be punished for the rest of her life.

    No guns. No self-protection. In an emergency, her only recourse now is to dial 911.

    All of the above examples are, of course, only the tip of the iceberg.

    Gun Owners of America frequently receives reports of police officers, army sergeants, gun dealers and people from all walks of life who are being disarmed by the Lautenberg ban for the very slightest of infractions.

    “This law must be repealed,” Pratt said. “And Congress owes it to the people to put Rep. Chenoweth’s bill to a vote.”

    “But if Congress doesn’t, then we will rate the cosponsorship of her bill instead of a vote. Those who cosponsor H.R. 1009 will be listed as having cast a pro-gun vote. All the others will have to answer to their constituents in November.

    “And gun owners will remember in November,” Pratt said.


  3. patricksperry Says:


    Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt has blasted BATF Director John W. Magaw for a nationwide memo demanding that police forces hunt out, disarm, and dismiss police officers who have had domestic difficulties in their personal lives.

    The memo, dated November 26, 1996, and addressed to “Request for Nationwide Broadcast,” acknowledges that the gun ban contained in the recently passed Lautenberg amendment “applies to law enforcement officers.”

    Said Magaw: “… [l]aw enforcement officers and other government officials who have been convicted of a qualifying misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition . . . .” Magaw goes on to advise police departments to “encourage” that officers “relinquish all firearms and ammunition in their possession immediately . . . .” He also points out that the act is applicable to minor crimes committed long before the act’s effective date.

    GOA head Larry Pratt blasted Magaw and Lautenberg for attempting to disarm the nation’s law enforcement officers. Said Pratt: “America’s brave law enforcement officers have enough to worry about without the additional problem of BATF’s jack-booted thugs interfering with their private lives and taking away their firearms and their jobs.”

    Pratt noted that the Lautenberg amendment would impose a lifetime gun ban on minor offenses not even requiring a jury trial — offenses which include “threats,” even if the threats are joking or incapable of being carried cut.

    Pratt went on to note that, understandably, Lautenberg had concealed the anti-police aspects of his gun ban at the time it was being considered in Congress. “Only Gun Owners of America was active in sounding the alarm against this anti-cop aspect of Congress’s most recent gun ban,” said Pratt. “You can bet that GOA will also take the lead in demanding the repeal of this legislative abomination.”


  4. All Government Court and Criminal Records Available here ! Says:

    All Government Court and Criminal Records Available here !

    All Government Court and Criminal Records Available here !


  5. Desmond Says:

    I was writing to let you know that California is not enforcing the law properly. I had my case completely vacated/expunged and I still had my gun rights revoked when I applied for a position in Law Enforcement. Can you assist me with why?


  6. patricksperry Says:

    Not enforcing the law? Are you out of your mind! That, is exactly what needs to be fought against.

    Get an attorney. If they say that it is because of your arrest history, you’re toast. if they say that it is because you are not allowed to be armed, then you have a case. Especially if it was in fact not a misdemeanor, but only an infraction. Or, if it is an ex post facto application of the law.

    Remember. This is a Federal law, that is based upon state non-felony criminal behavior. So, the states get a bye, saying. It’s not us. The feds get a bye saying, there is an exception. Then never fund it. This is a typical catch 22 that big government authoritarians love.

    Sorry for the delay in responding, my comp crashed.


  7. Robert Says:

    I also have a misdemeanor conviction for DV against the live-in boyfriend of my former wife. It was 15 years ago (before Lautenberg), and I was a young hothead. I’ve had no problems since then. I was not even aware of this law until just this past month when I was taggin along with my friend while he was hunting. Although I wasn’t hunting, and never even touched the shotgun, the game warden didn’t believe me, and issued a ticket for ‘hunting without a license’. Fine, whatever… I’ll just pay the fine and get over it.

    Now, I’ve discovered that I am facing charges for violation of this Lautenberg Law. I am confused, since it looks the actual law excludes shotguns. Here is an excerpt from the law… notice the part about the definition of destructive devices, and how shotgun used for sporting purposes are excluded: Section (4) (B) . If I am reading this right, then even if I had posession of the shotgun, while during hunting season, in the company of a person with a lifetime hunting license, then it would appear that I would have been using it for sporting purposes, and should be exempt from the Lautenberg Law?

    (3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does NOT include an antique firearm. (4) The term “destructive device” means – (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;


  8. patricksperry Says:

    Robert, the law does cover shotguns according to legal authorities. However, you are, like my mother, a victim of an Ex Post Facto application of the law. Most prosecutors are too wary of charging it independently because they know that it will get blasted upon appeal.
    Also, never just plead guilty on the presumption that life will go on. That hunting without a license could result is severe penalties. Later on if not right now.
    Contact “Gun Owners of America” and ask for legal help. We have been waiting literally years for a prosecutor to be stupid enough to charge someone with this. Usually they “just confiscate” the firearm in lieu of prosecution, or trade that plus a guilty plea with a “short” sentence…


  9. Robert Says:

    UPDATE: The county prosecutor has dropped all charges regarding the Lautenberg law, and I have not heard anything from any federal prosecutors. The DA is still attempting to prosecute for the single charge of hunting without a license, and I’ve directed my attorney to take it to trial if the DA is willing to go that far.

    Thank you for your information


  10. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Well that is good news Robert. I’d say fight it, and make damned sure that you have a jury trial. Otherwise, it’s your word against his, and courts ALWAYS take an LEO’s word over yours.


  11. Rob Raino Says:

    I just found this site and read some of these posts. I too have an old dv conviction. I have had it vacated and my gun rights restored in washington state. They didn’t have a problem taking my money for a concealed pistol license before telling me I can’t have a gun. Is there anyone still actively fighting this Law? If so, does anyone know their contact information? I would be happy to get involved.


  12. Patrick Sperry Says:

    It is impossible in a practical sense for most people to get any sort of expungement in most states. That said, Gun Owners of America is probably the largest organization still fighting this immoral and unconstitutional law.


  13. Rob Raino Says:

    Is there anything in specific I can do to help that?


  14. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Contact GOA, and tell them that you want to help with this issue.


  15. Dave Gilpatrick Says:

    How can you be prohibited from owning guns if youre not a felon isnt gun ownership a constitutional right or a privlidge? Confused. Domestic Violence 4TH degree is not a felon but a misdemeanor.


  16. Robert Says:

    I agree completely. Now the next step is they will be removing gun rights if you’re simply on a no fly list.


  17. Patrick Sperry Says:

    They already are doing that from what I have read Robert, and Lautenberg is attempting to codify it into law.

    Dave? Guess what? They are banning people from firearm ownership based upon Infraction levels as well.

    Raise hell with your Senators and Congresspersons about these grievious assaults on liberty!


  18. Rob Raino Says:

    The senators are the problem here. Has anyone been payin attention to what they’ve been doing lately? Their not interested in helping us. I’m actually talking with an attorney and am cosidering a lawsuit against NICS. I live in Wasington State and have an old DV conviction that I had vacated and had my firearms rights in Washington restored and NICS still doesn’t honor it. I have met with a couple of attorneys that say I have a case they think can win but could be costly. I’m in the process of tring to find help with the expense since the Feds have an unlimited supply of our cash and I don’t. If anyone knows of people or groups that may be willing to help a bit I’d love to be the guy to potentially pave the way for others who have been screwed by this law. One of the attorneys I met with is a gun rights advocate and speaks to groups. Any help or response is appreciated.


  19. Robert Says:

    I’m in the same boat. I had a very minor DV conviction in 1992 or 93. I was barely 22 years old, and let my temper take over after I literally caught my wife with the slimeball neighbor.
    However, my rights to own and posess firearms have been reinstated in California, yet under federal law I cannot. It makes no sense. Am I state citizen or a federal citizen???
    I was born in California, not Washington DC or on federal property. So, how does a federal congress get to write legislation that has jurisdiction over me as a citizen of the State of California??


  20. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Well guys, take a look at what I have posted over the past few days. There may be some hope after all. Even though the completely immoral ex post facto portion of the law has yet to be properly addressed.


  21. Vance Sparks Says:

    Ok, well I have things on my record that are dismissed but still there. The bad part is that all except one are either dismissed or never happened (long story and I don’t type very fast). The boggus stuff was kicked off with my now ex-wife running out of the house very melo-dramatically and calling the police on me for hitting her with a pillow. Yes folks, this is a class A misdemeanor. After I got out of jail and walked home after calling her for a ride and being hung up on, she then immediately called the police again and said “he’s back” so they came and arrested me again…for domestic violence! Then she went ahead and added that I threatened to kill her when I had earlier called for a ride (class C felony). The only problem is I called from the jail (in front of the officer who was releasing me) to ask for a ride. I’m pretty sure they would have “let me stay” had this actually happened. This is the same person who called the police on me for drinking and driving when I drove to Blockbuster four hours after ONE drink. No, I wasn’t arrested! I did, however have to go through the whole round of sobriety tests on Blockbuster’s doorstep while listening to the cops feel sorry for me and chuckling as one officer would tell another the story I’d just told them about how much I had and when. She did this type of thing out of the blue! Yes, I know I should’ve asked for some kind of report from her to prove sanity before I married her but I didn’t know I was supposed to She is now repeating this cycle/process with husband #3. I’ve had no trouble since her in 2003 and I’m happily re-married.
    The problem is that I tried to join the Army because I want to serve my country at age 39 because I don’t feel I’ve “done my part” up to this point. Even if you have something exspunged, you still can’t join the service because it’s there forever on a federal level. This record has also kept me from renting a house, out of countless job opportunities and generally wishing she could be erased from my memory except for my daughter. This whole thing is messed up.

    Ok, I guess I gave you the story anyway. I need help if anyone can. I want to join the service and yes, I know I’ll be deployed. I just want to do my part and better my country as well as myself. Any thoughts, anybody?


  22. RogueWitness Says:

    I am one who was banned from firearm possession under this law. Wife and I had a vicious verbal argument over some pretty heavy financial problems we were having. She threw a plate against the kitchen wall, so I told her I could break things too. I threw a chair against the wall, breaking a mirror (ahh yes, break a mirror and have a lifetime of bad luck.)

    I had to duck to avoid being hit as she was throwing things my direction. She left in the middle of the argument, but then turned around and called the police on ME! Long story short, I was the one who was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence.

    The really ridiculous part of the whole Lautenberg thing is… guns aren’t the end-all of weapons. Guns are only as good as the accuracy of the person doing the shooting, and most civilians aren’t marksmen, much less expert shooters. Many street thugs have to be up close to their victims before they can even score a “hit” with their firearms. In that case, let me just say (Mr. Lautenberg, are you listening? Hope so…)

    I’m experienced in throwing knives, throwing stars, experienced in weapons-based martial arts (stick, blade, sword, etc.) When I have none of those available, any old beer bottle or stick on the side of a street is promptly transformed into a weapon more deadly than one could ever imagine. And when all else fails, I am fully capable of disarming someone with a firearm and then turning it on the one who initiated the death threat.

    Lautenberg does absolutely NOTHING! It does take cops off of the street, and looks good on a federal database, but if those who rallied for it’s passage feel “safer” and “more secure”, they are very fatally mistaken. In a way, it makes things even worse!

    Those who cannot legally own firearms are picking up tricks in how to sever a head with string impregnated with metal shavings, crafting all manner of blades and sharp weaponry items, and even learning how to make a simple stick into a terrifyingly deadly instrument. Lautenberg has now caused people to fabricate secret concealed weapons, and it will keep getting worse. I saw one man who made what looks like a regular walking stick, but with just the twist of a wrist and a pull, out comes a razor sharp three-foot long katana blade which can sever a finger by just touching the edge.

    I’ve also witnessed people who have become extremely accurate and deadly with ONE shot of an arrow from a bow at up to 30 – 50 yards, some are even better than that. I saw a website on the internet where a guy made a rotating pod with a chair he sits in. When he pushes his legs against two foot panels, the chair slides backwards, priming a very powerful bow that launches a deadly spear on a shaft. That particular weapon has armor on it to shield the operator against anything less than a L.A.W. rocket or missile. It is accurate to 150 yards and his unit is complete with scope and computerized information on windage and elevation. He is working with robotics to do the aiming for him.

    They may as well repeal the Lautenberg bill. It’s causing people to improvise in far more deadly ways than firearms could be. The few domestic disturbances throughout history which ended in a deadly altercation generally have been with kitchen knives.

    It’s worthless legislation, and will never prevent murder and crimes. Again, it does nothing to criminals, as they will get their guns one way or another, or they will improvise. What it does do, is take cops off of the streets for simple spats with the wife or the old man.

    For any who like to see the bill remain in force, stop and think about what the people standing around you might have concealed in their clothing, around their ankles, or in their pockets. A piece of string impregnated with sharp metal shavings is coiled up into a very neat package. Just one example.

    Always go in peace, not in pieces!


  23. Rob Says:

    OK… so, I found way around the Lautenberg Law. I am so sleepy right now, that I won’t be as articulate as I usually am when writing, but I can get the message across.

    The Lautenberg law cannot be used against a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence if the person was not represented by an attorney, AND never waived his rights to be represented by an attorney. In my case, way back in 1990, I was representing myself when I plead ‘no contest’ to the DV charge.

    I have recently learned that the court house where the trial was held, has destroyed ALL records of my case. Apparently this is totally normal procedure for all misdemeanor cases over 10 years old. The only thing that still exists is a case file with a couple of lines that shows what the original charge was, and what the final conviction was.

    Example: If I were hunting with a friend’s shotgun and a law enforcement officer decided to check me out, then he might discover the DV charge. Eventually I would be charged for violating the Lautenberg law, and a court battle would begin. The burden now lies with the government to prove I KNOWINGLY waived my rights to an attorney, and also KNOWINGLY knew the consequences of doing so. This is usually done by a document that I would have to have signed way back in 1990. Without this document (and me telling the court that I didn’t have an attorney, nor did I willingly waive my rights), then the government cannot prove otherwise!

    Does this make sense?

    Also, it helps if the gun and ammunition are also manufactured in the same state in which you have posession of the gun, and they never crossed state lines. This makes it harder for the federal government to use the Commerce Clause against you, which is the only way the federal government can use a federal law against you (jurisdiction). Unless, you’re hunting in a federal forest, or BLM lands.

    Read this information… it will make more sense. Especially, if your conviction records have been destroyed like they were in my case.

    I’m thinking of going to apply for a purchase of a gun (manufactured in my state), and then when I’m denied, I will attempt these explanations.


  24. Rob Says:

    Here, I’ll paste the relevant portion from that above link (I hope it pastes ok, and doesn’t lose the proper formatting):

    B. Statutory Defenses.
    18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33) establishes two statutory defenses to the application of
    the possession prohibition, extending procedural protections that are generally only
    available to individuals charged with felonies to those charged with misdemeanor
    crimes ofdomestic violence. Specifically, §921(a)(33)(B) provides that the underlying
    misdemeanor offense may not be used as a predicate to a violation of §922(g)(9)
    unless: (1) the individual in question was represented by counsel in the case, or
    knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel, and, (2) in the instance that
    the individual was entitled to a trial by jury, the case was indeed tried by jury, or the
    individual in question made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right.
    Given that few misdemeanor offenses imbue defendants with the right to a trial
    by jury, the second of the aforementioned statutory defenses has had no discernible
    impact on court decisions regarding convictions pursuant to §922(g)(9). It does appear, however, that the requirement concerning legal representation could serve to
    limit the application of §922(g)(9). Specifically, given that there is no constitutional
    right to counsel in misdemeanor cases, it has been surmised that many domestic
    violence misdemeanants appeared without representation and likely did not make a
    knowing and intelligent waiver of that right, thereby significantly limiting the universe
    of individuals against whom the possession ban may be enforced.13 The Court of
    Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed just such a situation in United States v. Akins,
    holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant had validly
    waived his right to counsel prior to pleading guilty to an underlying state
    misdemeanor domestic violence charge, as required to establish a violation of
    At issue in Akins was the defendant’s contention that the indictment charging
    him with violating §922(g)(9) was faulty in that it failed to allege an underlying
    misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in §921(a)(33), given that he had
    not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel prior to a 1989
    misdemeanor conviction. Addressing this argument, the court explained that in order
    to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, a “defendant must
    be made aware of (1) the nature of the charges against him; (2) the possible penalties;
    and (3) the dangers and disadvantages of self representation.”15 The court went on to
    stress that this standard applies to both misdemeanor and felony charges.16 Analyzing
    the facts of the case, the court determined that the defendant’s original waiver
    consisting of a written statement was insufficient, as it merely recited some of the
    possible consequences of a guilty plea and did not at any point apprise the defendant
    of the “dangers and disadvantages of proceeding without council.”17 Additionally, the
    court found it significant that there was no evidence to indicate that the trial court
    provided the defendant with any warnings apart from those contained within the
    waiver. The court also determined that there was no evidence as to the defendant’s
    background and conduct that would allow a conclusion that his waiver of counsel was
    knowing and intelligent irrespective of the noted deficiencies. Accordingly, the court held that the defendant’s waiver of counsel was insufficient, precluding prosecution
    under §922(g)(9). *18

    *18 Id. at 1205-1206. It should be noted that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has also
    ruled on the waiver requirement, holding that evidence of a written waiver, coupled with a
    prior invocation of the right to counsel, is sufficient for a court to conclude as a matter of law
    that a defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. United
    States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 622 (8th Cir. 1999).


  25. Mark Richard Watson Says:

    Okay, why isn’t it repealed yet? A person who shoots their spouse and gets a felony may later petition to get their civil rights restored and the GO BUY GUNS. A person who grabs their spouse’s arm can NEVER BUY A GUN AGAIN AND GETS 10 YEARS IN PRISON IF THEY DO.

    How does this 1) Prevent violence OR 2) Make SENSE?


  26. Mark Richard Watson Says:

    There is a petition I started to remind them to hurry up and repal:


  27. Vic Says:

    Mr. Mark Richard Watson, I just signed your petition as soon as I clicked sign now a Support Obama 2012 petition came up asking me to also sign that one. Do you know the reason for this ?


  28. preachur Says:

    They closed my petition without my consent.
    The site where it was posted automatically tries to get you to sign “relevent” petitions. I am starting to think they are anti-freedom. 😦


  29. preachur Says:

    Hmmm, hope this isn’t a repeat post. They closed my petition. The site automatically re-directs you to the next petition they think you will sign after you sign… I am starting to think they are anti-freedom. Several petitions have been closed without my knowledge or consent, and without explanation.


  30. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Maybe he got hacked? The obamanites are great purvayors of misandry after all.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: