Should You Lose Your 2A Rights If Convicted Of Domestic Abuse?

[Glock Fan]

I feel that the cases should be handled on an individual basis. Maybe a husband and wife had an argument, and due to some stupid law, both of them were arrested and charged with "domestic violence" crimes that fall under Lautenberg legislation. Now that they're both disqualified from owning firearms for life, their ability to make a living may be in serious jeapordy. I had a buddy who was a wildlife technician. In almost 20 years on the job, he never needed to use a firearm. His job description required that he be able to handle and possess firearms in case there were "preadatory control" aspects of the job. His misdemeanor conviction of "domestic violence" (basically a shouting match with the wife) cost him his job and he's now struggling to make ends meet.

The Lautenberg legislation has good intentions, but in my opinion is too general in how it's written. Judges should be trusted to evaluate evidence on a case by case basis and render the proper judgement. There needs to be some leeway in cases where "special circumstances" exist.


gf

[gvaldeg1]

You made my point precisely Glock Fan! Thanks

[Fallguy]

In most states it takes at least two DUI convictions within a certain time frame before you can't get a license to carry.

One arrest and/or conviction does not make a habitual offender.

[netentity]

The legislation should be amended for habitual offenders. The Lautenberg Amendment has been abused too many times. There have been cases of persons discharged from the military or fired from law enforcement agencies because of a domestic violence charge that had no merit. There also have been cases of persons abusing the amendment just to vindictively suspend or revoke someone's 2A rights.

The only saving grace of the Lautenberg Amendment is the probitions are State level crimes, a good attorney can have the conviction appealed. If the conviction occurred in a 2A friendly jurisdiction and there's little to no merit to the conviction your 2A rights can be restored.

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by netentity

The legislation should be amended for habitual offenders. The Lautenberg Amendment has been abused too many times. There have been cases of persons discharged from the military or fired from law enforcement agencies because of a domestic violence charge that had no merit. There also have been cases of persons abusing the amendment just to vindictively suspend or revoke someone's 2A rights.

The only saving grace of the Lautenberg Amendment is the probitions are State level crimes, a good attorney can have the conviction appealed. If the conviction occurred in a 2A friendly jurisdiction and there's little to no merit to the conviction your 2A rights can be restored.

While I agree the Lautenberg Amendment, like many, is obscure I don't agree with changing the wording to "habitual". If someone is already so prone to anger that they can lose control and beat their spouse, or kids, they have already demonstrated their inability to handle a firearm safely. It won't rally matter whether it's against the law, or not, getting a gun will be possible. Having it illegal for an abuser to have a firearm allows the court to ad additional crimes to the sentence and possibly save a life. I understand that any law can be misused and sincerely wish that NO firearms laws would be necessary, however, I don't believe that to be the case.

I agree that all people of mature age and clear background are allowed to own firearms but is there anyone out there who will suggest to me that people convicted of domestic violence should be allowed to own a firearm? To be clear, I am a staunch supporter of the 2A but, when individuals show that violence and aggression can't be controlled then it is obvious to me that gun-owning privileges should be revoked. I keep an open mind and promise to respond to intelligent debate.

[robiewan]

As with anything, when an individual is Actually found to be guilty through a trial, or through confession, and spends their time being "rehabilitated," when they return to society their rights ought to be restored to them.
On the other hand, when an individual has only been accused (and as someone pointed out--the abuse for this is astronomical when custody is in the mix for a divorce!) of domestic abuse they have every right to not only face their accuser in court, but they are Innocent until it is proven they are guilty - if indeed they are. Therefore rights ought not be eliminated if one has only been accused. I can see, to some degree, the validity of temporary restrictions, but upon acquittal those rights ought to be restored in full without penalty, or without having to go to court to retrieve your rights! And any weapon which may have been confiscated ought to be Immediately restored to the owner.

[kwo51]

Both parties should be disarmed in domestic disputes.