Repeal The Lautenberg Amendment
In July 1996 Senate Amendment 5083 to House Bill 2980 passed by unanimous voice vote. This amendment is now what we refer to as the Lautenberg Amendment. It prevents people with any ‘domestic violence’ convictions from ever owning a gun. The conviction could have occurred long before the passage of S.A.5083 and may have been a misdemeanor.
Over turning Lautenberg will not be easy. We know better, but the opposition will claim that we favor domestic violence. The concepts of ‘ex post facto’ and reasonableness are violated by this law. What we really favor is the Constitution.
http://www.petitiononline.com/658104/petition.html (open as of 08)
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Lautenbergrepeal (closed)
http://www.gopetition.com/online/7723.html (closed)
Orginal date nov05Â Â Updated nov08
Special Forum Templates.
I was charged with DV back in 1995 , when my thhen girlfriend and I got into an arguement. I tried to get her to talk to me and when she didnt I pulled her towards me when she was laying on the floor. her friend called the police and I was arrested for a rug burn to the knee. I completed all classes that the court ordered me to go to and soon after that i joined the military. I served in Operation Iraqi freedom and recieved two purple Hearts for getting blown up twice. Once I returned home I started working for a security guard company and was then fired because I found out I could not carry a weapon. I believe that I am seen as a hard on criminal for a mistake that I made so long ago. I cant carry a weapon now but when I was fighting for your oil I was able to carry any weapon the Army threw at me. This is truely a GREAT COUNTRY.
I hear ya Sgt… I was a highway patrolman for 7 years until I came home one night in 1996 to find my wife bangin the neighbor. I was arrested for slamming the screendoor on my wifes foot as I stormed out. I was forced to plead guilty by a worthless public defender because I couldnt afford a real attorney. The result, now Im a fuckin trashman making $9 an hour. Thanks alot congress. Guess what…its easier to buy an illegal gun on the street than to buy liquor without an ID. The only thing youve accomplished here is keeping me from getting a good job and supporting my children. This bullshit law needs to be repealed!
Mike & Sgt,
I can fully feel your pain. I served as an LEO for 6 years, left the job because of a girlfriend. We never lived together and never did anything more than dated. One night a fight arose, I grabbed her arm to stop her from slapping me. I was hooked up and charged with assualt on a female. The magistrate even said, be lucky you two didnt live together or it would be DV. I fought the charge, but lost and was convicted, paid the fine and was free and clear. Recently I wanted to rejoin a Police Department, in a different state. After submitting the paperwork, I was notified that under Laughtenberg I was ineligible due to the factors of my conviction. Even the hiring Commander thought it was a little bogus, but understandably his hands are tied. So here I go to find another job, hoping to make enough money to live a decent life. The incident happened over 5 years ago and til this day I am still paying the price for a mistake that wasnt even classified DV.
This law is terrible, while I support gun control laws to be enacted on felons, and certainly support the laws pertaining to protection of life, I cannot in good faith support this law. This has destroyed the careers of many LEO’s and military men.
I dont know how many of you are following the Skoien case, where the 7th circuit appeals court vacated a mans conviction with a misdemeanor DV conviction, I just want to comment on what a particular man had to say about it.Tony Gibart is worried that this case might leave a wrong impression that firearm restrictions imposed on those convicted of domestic violence are somehow different in kind from similar restrictions on felons and those deemed mentally incompetent. The truth is they should be different. The key word here is misdemeanor. They can be trusted to hold public office, to vote and sit on a jury, but they cant own a gun, makes a whole lot of sense. Tony Gibart claims to have all this evidence, that seven victims have been killed with firearms with previous DV convictons. Guess what they still got there hands on guns. Out of all statistics shown I wonder if they ever show any about those being previosly convicted staying out of trouble lets say ten or twenty years, I doubt it because they claim that is goes unreported, and they feel that it give them justification to judge everybody the same. The truth is not everybod with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction comes home on a daily basis and manipulates every aspect of there spouses lives. I wonder if the statistics of those with felony and misdemeanor convictions are separate, if not they should be because they are different classes of offenders. The statistics that are shown are only partial truths. If Skoines crime was severe enough to lose his second amendment rights he should of been charged with a felony he was not, this is a failure of the judges if they are failing to do so. Good people are losing there right to bear arms as something as a silly argument. I know a few women that claim that they are tired of people like tony gibart meddling with there lives over someting as silly as a argument with there spouse. If any type of intervention was required it should have been classified as a felony. Right now it is easier for violent felons to get there second amendment rights restored than those convicted with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. I guess it is okay to take a risk of someone being a menace to an entire society over family issues. To strip one of there rights over what they think he or she might do is purely unconstitutional. To treat felons better that misdemeanants is unconstitutional. The lautenberg goes far beyond domestic violence take this terror watch list for example, they are talking about putting returning veterans from iraq and afgahanistan on it that could strip them of there second amendment rights. This is a slap in the face to our men and woman serving in uniform. Might I remind Tony Gibart that if it werent for our veterans that they would not be able to exercise any right. It is time that the government and people like tony gibart to stop micro managing americans life. They are trying to strip away the second amendment slowly with amendment after amendment. To sentence one for exercising his constitutional right is tyrany. How can one lose a constitutional right when the offense was not severe enough to lose core civil rights. The ex po facto thing has been argued time and time again, how can memebers of congress dare say that losing your god giving constitutional right is not considered punishment. America please wake up.
On June 26, 2008 the United States Supreme court addressed and found in favor of the fact that it is the individuals right to keep and bear arms. The part that they did not address was the third part that says “Shall not be infringed.” After looking up the legal definition of that I found, The word “shall” means “commanded”, the word “not” means “in no way”, and the word “infringed” means “tresspassed upon”. So by law they are commanded not to take away the individuals right to keep and bear arms.