The Ban of Domestic Violence Gun Ban , often called " The Lautenberg Amendment" ("Tire Ban for Individuals Convicted of Crime Violence Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104- 208, 18 USCÃ, 922 (g) (9) ), is an amendment to the 1997 Omnibus Combined Allocation Act, adopted by the 104th US Congress in 1996, which prohibits access to firearms by persons convicted of violent crime in the household. This act is often referred to as the "Lautenberg Amendment" after his sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).
Video Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
Summary
The law prohibits the transmission, transportation, possession and use of firearms or ammunition by persons convicted of a domestic crime, or who are under an order of detention (protection) for domestic violence that falls within the criteria established by 18 USCÃ, § 922 (g) (8) . The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent subsequent amendments prohibit anyone convicted of crime and anyone subject to domestic violence protection orders from owning firearms. It also makes it against the law to consciously sell or deliver firearms or ammunition to such people.
The definition of 'convicted' can be found in 18 U.S.C.Ã, 921 (a) (33) (B) (i) and has an exception:
- (i) A person shall not be considered punished for such offenses for the purposes of this chapter, except...
- (i) the person is represented by the lawyer in this case, or consciously and intelligently waive the right to advise on this case; and
- (II) in the case of prosecution for the offenses described in this paragraph in which a person is entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case is tried, either
- (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
- (bb) the person consciously and intelligently waives the right to have a case tried by a jury, with a plea of ​​guilty or otherwise.
- (ii) A person shall not be deemed punished for such offense for the purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been removed or set aside, or constitutes an offense the person has forgiven or has recovered (if applicable law of jurisdiction regulates the loss of non- civil rights under such breaches) unless the remission, repatriation or restoration of civil rights clearly states that such person shall not transmit, carry, possess, or receive firearms.
Maps Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
Restricting order restrictions
For restrictions arising from the detention order there are some requirements before the restrictions apply as follows:
- Hear - the defendant must have a chance to be heard at the trial
Intimate Partners - the defendant and the applicant must intimately partner
Hold Contact The Future - must hold the defendant against harassment, stalking, or threatening
Credible Threat or Physical Strength - the defendant should be considered a credible threat to the applicant or forbidden to use physical strength
Hearing requirements ensure that firearm restrictions will not apply after the initial inspection of the former parte during which a temporary order is given, but only after a long-term order is given after a trial in which both parties have a chance to be heard. The intimate partner's requirements say that the relationship must be sexual and involves cohabitation or the same child. Brady indicator triggers are generated when the requirements apply, so the arrest order is recorded in the federal database as a prohibition on firearms ownership. However, the state forms used to hold orders do not always clearly indicate whether certain federal criteria apply, making it difficult to determine whether firearm restrictions apply without a detailed reading of orders, petitions, and other court records.
Court history
This law has been tested in federal court with case of United States v. Emerson (No. 99-10331) (5th Cir. 2001). See also U.S. v. Emerson, 231 Fed. Appx. 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (The same defendant sought a review). This case involves a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. (B) (8) (c) (ii), a federal law prohibiting the transport of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order which, explicitly stipulates, prohibits the use of physical strength. against an intimate partner or child. Emerson did not discuss the part of the Lautenberg Amendment which involved convictions for domestic violence. Originally canceled in 1999 for being unconstitutional, but the case was dropped at the time of appeal in 2001.
Case Gillespie v. The city of Indianapolis, Indiana , 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999) also opposed this law, and the case was rejected. The ex post facto aspects of the law are challenged by:
- United States v. Brady , 26 F.3d 282 (2nd Cir.), Cert. rejected, 115 S.Ct. 246 (1994) (refuses ex post facto challenges to 922 (g) (1) confidence) and
- United States v. Waters, 23 F.3d 29 (2nd Cir. 1994) ( ex post facto based on the 922 (g) (4) confidence challenge).
Both challenges were rejected.
Likewise, this law is applied in the United States v. Jardee where he was ordered that threats were subjected to a weapons ban not turning a "small" crime into a "serious" one that requires a jury. trial.
Recently, United States v. Castleman (2014) opposes the enactment of the law to impose light sentences that do not involve "the use or use of physical force". In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court declared that Castleman's conviction of "bad domestic assault" did not qualify as a "minor crime of domestic violence" under Tennessee state law. Specifically holds that the requirement of "physical strength" is met by a level of strength that supports the conviction of common-law law - that is, offensive touch ", thus preventing it from possession of firearms.
See also
- Gun Control Act
- The Armor Owners Protection Act
External links
- The Justice Department Legal Resources Handbook
- Articles of Consumer Law Articles
- Archives of Violent Domestic Violence
- Emerson Cases
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments