You going to let Lautenberg Amendment stand?

Question

You know, the amendment Clinton signed in the 1990's that Frank Lautenberg sponsored. Puts a lifetime ban from firearms ownership on anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor incident of family violence. Yell at your spouse or slap them, and you could be banned. For life. Even though the incident didn't involve a firearm.

Doesn't affect me personally, but I see this as creeping gun control designed to sabotage the natural rights of all of us.

Even worse, this law is an ex post facto law, which should be unconstitutional in that regard alone.

Are we going to let this law stand?

My suggestions:

1) I urge the people of New Jersey to vote this anti-patriot Frank Lautenberg out of office.
2) I urge Congress to repeal the Lautenberg amendment
3) I urge Congress to censure Frank Lautenberg for his assault on freedom and slander against gunowners (implying that gunowners are wife-beaters and that such a law is needed).

And for those who just don't get it, gun owners are not wife beaters any more than the next person. The entire purpose of the Lautenberg Amendment was to place gunowners into the same context as wife beaters and therefore cast a bad light upon gunowners and continue the advancement of gun control.

Given that, there has never been a case in which minor misdemeanor stuff could eliminate the freedoms you have in the Bill of Rights. Should take at least a felony to suspend that stuff.

Lautenberg is an anti-patriot, an anti-American.

Answer 1

How does the law imply that gun owners are wife beaters? It simply says that people who beat their wives and kids shouldn't own guns. Do you consider drunk driving laws to be slander against drivers (implying drivers are alcoholics and that such a law is needed)?

Answer 2

You said it just the way people believe. I was almost a victim of this after my ex slapped me
50 times. Thank god I got a lawyer Men don't call the cops women do. I'm not advocating DV in any way. There are things that happen in a divorce no one is proud of. Bottom line is one misdemeanor indiscretion should not cost you a constitutional right. You make one bad decision that doesn't involve a weapon at all in 40 or 50 years and you pay a huge price to just to make people feel good. There were people who plea guilty 30 years ago to a misdemeanor just to get it behind them, guilty or not, just to get it behind them. Now they've paid a price they never imagined. They are the ones I feel sorry for. Our law makers have lost touch with reality and are only worried about votes. They are all chicken **** to bring this up because they think they will look like they support DV. How about doing what's right. I heard that if you join the military, the Lautenberg act says you can only beat down not up. Meaning a parent can commit DV against a child, but a child can't commit DV against a parent. Same with a Husband can commit DV against a Wife, but the Wife cant commit DV against a Husband. Parents and Husbands are F'd

Answer 3

If it's a federal regulation, then it should be challenged as outside the scope of Congressional authority -- Congress cannot regulate firearms except on federal property, or as relates to interstate commerce or the military.

Domestic violence is not a Congressional enumerated area of authority -- so any federal law like this is invalid under both the 10th and 2nd Amendments.

If it's a state law, then it's valid -- because states can regulat based on such statuses -- but you can get it changed at the state level.

Also, it may not fall under the prohibitions of the Article I Ex Post Facto clause -- even though I agree that it should -- because domestic violence was already a crime -- this doesn't make something criminal retroactively, nor does it increase the direct sentence -- and collateral restrictions are often (for whatever reason) held to be outside that clause.

Answer 4

how can so many people be so blind and still have 20- 20 vison is beyound my comprehension, Lautenberg sounds like a Jewish name,so that might explain a lot, not all Jew's are Zionist, but many are, I question why the American people are so adamant about giving their country away, it seems they are doing every thing they can to destroy it,they will keep electing scum like lautenberg and Clintons even after they sell us out and destroy our only valuable asset, " our Constitution" Lautenberg got the gun control passed just a step from total ban on guns, Clinton destroyed our 4 th ammendment and I would bet 90 %of Americans don't realize the police can come in and search you home , car, , office or any where they desire without a warrent, it seems that every Zionist controlled politician , which is all of them, gets another law passed to controll our citizens more and more, and our people will not even complain, we will be in the same situation as Germany was before WW11 before long, and we are dangerously close now,
our people had better wake up and elect independents as our forefathers told us as organized partys are to easily bought, and they have by the Zionist,please do a minimum amt, of research to confirm what I have said,
Corphgraph, youare a pretty smart cookie, I respect most every thing you say, youseem to be fair and intelligent , not to many around any more, keep up the good work, if you ran for office, I sure would vote for you,

Answer 5

Where the confusion tends to come from is with the use of the word "disqualified" and its meaning to the military. ANY and all conditions, situations,etc., be they medical, mental or moral, that require a waiver of some type means that yes someone IS disqualified, until and unless a waiver (exception to policy) is granted. As you have found out there are recruiters out there that do not grasp that concept. If you were "not automatically disqualified", at the start of the process, then there would be NO NEED to request a waiver or have it approved so that someone would then be qualified. It makes no difference as to what level within the various services the waiver request has to go for denial or approval.

Answer 6

I'm from New Jersey. Frank Lautenberg will be the Senator from New Jersey until he retires or dies. He's up for reelection in 2008 and no serious Republican is stepping up to run against him. With that said, he is absolutely right that no one with a history of domestic violence should be allowed to own a gun. He also introduced legislation to prevent suspected terrorists from owning guns.

Answer 7

I take it you believe guns belong in the home of wife beaters and other violent criminal so that they can use them to kill family members. Mr Lautenberg will get my vote in the next election