Why Women Support Repealing the Lautenberg Gun Ban

Top Ten Reasons
Why Women Support Repealing the Lautenberg Gun Ban

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585, fax: 321-8408

(Sent to Congress May 1, 1997)

NUMBER TEN: The Lautenberg ban can permanently disarm women who try to defend themselves against an abusive spouse.(1)

NUMBER NINE: Women can now lose their Second Amendment rights for slapping a husband during an argument.(2)

NUMBER EIGHT: Women are often charged with domestic violence — even if they are not at fault — when the police arrive at a domestic disturbance, and the resulting conviction or plea-bargain now revokes their gun rights forever.(3)

NUMBER SEVEN: Women are losing their constitutional rights over extremely minor offenses — including plea-bargaining to a $25 misdemeanor fine (even 20 years ago or more) for an offense they might not have committed (see number eight above).(4)

NUMBER SIX: Women can lose their gun rights for shoving their husband during an argument.(5)

NUMBER FIVE: Women can lose their right to keep and bear arms for simply spanking a child.(6)

NUMBER FOUR: Women can lose their ability to defend themselves as a result of bogus charges of domestic violence which are “routinely used as tactics in divorce proceedings.”(7)

NUMBER THREE: The Lautenberg gun ban completely violates the Second Amendment which ensures that the people’s right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.

NUMBER TWO: Women’s groups (like Concerned Women for America, Independent Women’s Forum, and Safety for Women and Responsible Motherhood) have opposed the Lautenberg provision.

AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY WOMEN THINK THE LAUTENBERG BAN SHOULD BE REPEALED: Because liberal Senator Frank Lautenberg sponsored it.

What Can You Do:

Cosponsor H.R. 1009. This is the only bill that will fully repeal the Lautenberg gun ban, unlike other so-called repeal bills. Please let Gun Owners of America know that we can count on you to take a stand for the Bill of Rights. Thank you.

—————————————————————
1. “Women are being charged with assault when it’s self-defense or fictitious,” said Sue Osthoff, director of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. . . . “I think it’s being used as a very systematic weapon against women. . . . When the web is thrown out, women come back in, often inappropriately.” Leef Smith, “Domestic Violence Arrests Rise Among Women,” The Washington Post, 18 November 1996.
2. “I’ve had a lot of women who call and say their husband started the fight and then when the police get involved, their husbands accuse them of mutual combat,” Cathy Maxfield of Virginians Against Domestic Violence said. “I had one woman who called and said her husband hit her, and out of reflex, she him back.” Ibid.
3. “Jeanne MacLeod, director of the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, attributes a good part of the increased arrests [of women] to the tendency of police to arrest both parties when they have doubts. ‘I think there are many cases when women are being victimized by the mandatory arrest policies,’ MacLeod said. ‘You tell the police they have to arrest someone, and sometimes they can’t tell who did what to whom, and they’ll arrest both people to safeguard themselves.'” Ibid.
4. “Many people who plea-bargained 20 years ago on such a charge [of domestic violence] and paid a small court fine (instead of spending $5,000 in legal fees to defend themselves) will be surprised to discover that they have lost one of their constitutional rights.” James Bovard, “Disarming Those Who Need Guns Most,” The Wall Street Journal, 23 December 1996.
5. “‘Many of the arrests [from domestic violence] are based on such things as shoves’ — rather than knock-down punches or chairs broken over people’s heads.” Ibid.
6. “The new law could provide vigilante prosecutors the power to seize the guns of parents who are not following Dr. Spock’s child-rearing recommendations. . . . ‘There is a move across the country by child rights groups to outlaw corporal punishment. In a few instances, families have been found guilty of abusing their children as a result of spanking — not that their children were hurt or anything.'” Ibid.
7. “Bogus charges of domestic violence are routinely used as tactics in divorce proceedings. . . . ‘Many domestic violence charges are false — perhaps as many as one-third where child custody or divorce issues are involved,’ says Peter Proctor, a forensic expert in Houston.” Ibid.


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

6 Responses to “Why Women Support Repealing the Lautenberg Gun Ban”

  1. patricksperry Says:

    Spank Your Child … Lose Your Guns!
    — Cosponsor H.R. 1009, the FULL Lautenberg repeal bill
    Provided by Gun Owners America
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
    Springfield, VA 22151, (703)321-8585
    (December 10, 1997)

    Well, another parent has forfeited her Second Amendment rights for a mere swat given as discipline. Earlier this year, the New York Times (10/10/97) reported how two parents might easily be convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors for swatting their children on a plane.

    Now, a Michigan mother is losing her right of self-defense because she swatted her child in discipline (see the article below). The Lautenberg gun ban, passed late last year, is not only disarming parents for mere spanking, it is also disarming them for simple arguments!

    In Virginia recently, the slight tearing of a husband’s breast pocket was enough to cart a wife off to jail — even though the husband refused to press charges. In fact, the husband states he had only called the police to get “documentation in a custody dispute” (The Washington Post Magazine, 10/26/97). Unfortunately, Virginia law now requires police to press charges in such cases. If convicted, that wife will lose her gun rights forever!

    [TWP Magazine also reported how a daughter was recently arrested, to the shock and horror of the family for throwing a set of keys near her mother! She might have to forget about defending her family in years to come since a minor misdemeanor conviction for a crime such as this would trigger the Lautenberg sanction. The Lautenberg law, which arguably cast its net for sharks, is now bringing in all kinds of innocent minnows and other fish.]
    H.R. 1009 would reverse travesties such as this by repealing the Lautenberg gun ban IN FULL!
    At a minimum, every other bill that deals with this horrendous law keeps the gun ban in place (for ordinary citizens) for “offenses” committed after September 28, 1996. These “offenses” could be as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse.

    H.R. 1009 is pro-family. is pro-Second Amendment … it is pro-Tenth Amendment.
    If you have not done so yet, please cosponsor H.R. 1009, the ONLY full Lautenberg gun ban repeal!

    Despite serving NO jail time despite this being a VERY minor “offense” . . she still loses her gun rights forever!

  2. patricksperry Says:

    RE: The above;

    Mom Convicted of Slapping Daughter

    By Jim Suhr
    Associated Press Writer
    Friday, November 14,1997; 9:27 a.m. EST

    NOVI, Mich. (AP) — A woman who disciplined her wayward 14-year-old daughter with a slap in the face, giving her a black eye, has been found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery.

    Kathi Herren, 32, said her conviction Thursday sends the wrong message for parents who want to disciple their children.

    “You’re going to have a bunch of out of control teen-agers; doing whatever they want,” she said. Jurors “have no idea ! what they’ve done.”

    The count carries a penalty of up to three months in jail and a $500 fine, although Judge Brian MacKenzie said he had no intention of sending her to jail.

  3. Finding out in vA Says:

    I think the law is a good one if in fact violence such has hitting did occur, no one has the right to put their hands on you. My husband and I got into a spat in 1994, he threw an ashtray, instead of lashing out at me, it hit the storm door and busted the glass, a neighbor heard the glass breaking and called the police, I did not want to press charges on my spouse for this, he did not hit me, he merely threw an ashtray, not even in my direction, well, he was charged with assault, he went to court, the judge ordered counseling, he complied with the order, went back to court, and on the order was a hand written “No further action”. He was represented by a attorney, and we were under the impression that he was “Not Guilty” since he complied with the judges order, and our lawyer advised us that it was done, it wasnt until 12/08 when we went to purchase a handgun that he was denied because there is a “domestic violence” conviction on his record. This law is not fair, and it should be considered on a case by case basis, We are now in the process of contacting the judge to see if we can get the conviction overturned, not sure if it will even do any good due to the length in time, had we not tried to purchase a handgun we would have never known that he wasnt allowed to even own one. Not only is it unfair to him, but because we live in the same home, it takes away my rights to own a handgun as well. He will never be able to take our son hunting, target shooting, turkey shoots or anything like that because of this.

  4. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Actually, yours is a story often repeated. However, depending on the state that you live in, you can still own a firearm, and have it in your home. It just can’t ever be under his control at any time.

    Also the date of the so-called conviction could come into play. A federal judge threw out a firearms ban that had been committed / pled to, before the law came into effect. That would be the ex post facto portion of the law that I hammer on here all the time. The state of New Jersey is appealing the ruling though, so only time will tell.

  5. John Says:

    I am, unfortunately, incapable of enjoying the shooting sports because of this heavy handed ruling. I realize that the research shows that many convicted of DV will, within 2-3 years time, possibly do this again. I also believe that anyone who has a single DV conviction over 10 years old should receive a clearance to purchase, possess, and discharge a firearm. I tried to find statistics on the long-term recidivism rates…but no luck! Everyone is so hot to trot over an appeal, hell, I’d settle for a lengthy “cooling off”. The restriction on the military enlistments are a shame, though! I spent 5 yrs in the Marines and I simply don’t remember a time I wasn’t under complete control. I can see barring cops, P.I.’s, and others that would have a weapon and the opportunity to use it…but getting a weapon off a base is literally impossible. If anyone is interested, I’d like to start a blog and raise interest in a legislative proposal that would reinstate rights over a period of time. E-mail me at Sinrman68@aol.com and Ill begin putting the blog together!

  6. Patrick Sperry Says:

    I agree with you to a point John. Check today’s postings for an update related to this issue!
    😀

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: