Lautenberg ok by SCOTUS

[Bob P]

Agreed.....my statement was more about principle and human nature.

Ah. Very good. *waves hand* Carry on.

 

[Tim L]

Any retroactive law should be unconstitutional. If you were charged with simple assault 20 years ago,it's now D.V and you can't own a gun even though the law wasn't around then.NH constitution says there will be no "retrospective" laws. Lautenberg should not be used against people for a time when there was no law.

 

[terraformer]

Any retroactive law should be unconstitutional. If you were charged with simple assault 20 years ago,it's now D.V and you can't own a gun even though the law wasn't around then.NH constitution says there will be no "retrospective" laws. Lautenberg should not be used against people for a time when there was no law.

Agreed. It is double jeopardy on punishment. Wait until the second gets incorporated. That will raise the bar such that a whole bunch of wife beaters with no record after the early 80's will cease to be prohibited. I am not looking forward to that time.

 

[drgrant]

Any retroactive law should be unconstitutional.

I completely agree with this. Any "offenses" pre lautenberg should be
exempt.

If you were charged with simple assault 20 years ago,it's now D.V and you can't own a gun even though the law wasn't around then.

This depends on how your state classifies simple assault. If the incident didn't involve a domestic partner, it would stand to reason that it doesn't fall under Lautenberg. However, the other caveat of course, is if it runs afoul of other GCA68 prohibited person crap- EG, if the charge was such that the max sentence for it is in excess of 2 years in prison, you're still disqualified, just by other means.

One problem with all this GCA68/Lautenberg garbage is that it effectively means different things in different states.

For example, let's say two different guys get convicted of virtually the same charge in two different states. If one state has a lower max penalty than
the other, then that guy keeps his rights while the other guy gets fried, because his state decided to have less classes for a conviction or a higher
possible max minimum. (EG, like MA's first offense DUI is now a de-facto GCA-68 disqualifier, despite the fact that actual prison time for first offenders
is practically unheard of, unless they injure/kill someone in the process. ) Lautenberg/FIP also ignores the context of the conviction- for example,
a judge might convict someone, but give that person no jail time, because he thought the offense was not very egregious, but still was compelled by
law to convict.... well, the prohibition trigger doesn't "care" about any of that, it's just based on some metric.

This weird "collusion" between federal and state law disturbs and pisses me off. While I don't like the concept of "prohibited person" at all to begin
with, the law would be a lot less absurd if the federal law encompassed its own, strictly defined metrics.

The existing system also creates a cloud of discrimination against gun owners- by virtue of FIP/Lautenberg, gun owners are "de facto" held to a
higher standard of conduct than the average citizen.

Not to mention, this FIP/Lautenberg crap does virtually nothing- the conviction rates at the federal level for violating those laws are so low as to
have little to no deterrent effect at all. (For example, how many 2nd, 3rd, fourth offense gangbangers get sent off to the feds for FIP? Not enough to
make a real dent. ) Typically the only time a BG ever sees time for FIP/Lautenberg violations is in multi jurisdictional operations conducted between local/state/fed authorities, with the feds making all the arrests, or arrests conducted by FBI/USMS/CBP/etc in the course of their normal
operations. Numerically speaking, it's a handful of sand in a five gallon bucket. It makes you wonder why the law exists at all... seems like just
another gun control wallhack to me.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Wait until the second gets incorporated. That will raise the bar such that a whole bunch of wife beaters with no record after the early 80's will cease to be prohibited. I am not looking forward to that time.

I don't think this is a big of a problem as you make it out to be. A lot of those people convicted may still be statutorily disqualified by other means, eg, other state laws, or convictions which trip the normal FIP provisions. I doubt any of that is going away. For that matter, I kind of doubt that Lautenberg will be going away, as it will likely fall under the "reasonable restrictions" BS that was reaffirmed in Heller.

IMO the only way that FIP/Lauttenberg is going to go (or at least get "judicially modified" to be more 2A compatible) is if a specific case makes it to the supremes over that specific issue- otherwise they will refuse to touch it.

-Mike

 

[DickWanner]

Agreed. It is double jeopardy on punishment. Wait until the second gets incorporated. That will raise the bar such that a whole bunch of wife beaters with no record after the early 80's will cease to be prohibited. I am not looking forward to that time.

You're going under the premise that only scumbags will get their rights returned. You can't have that "feel good" mindset IMHO. Yes, some scumbags may slip through the cracks, but if said wife-beater has not done anything else in those 20+ years to become a prohibited person why shouldn't their rights be returned? Just like someone who becomes a prohibited person over a white-collar felony. They did nothing violent, but still lost their 2A non-the-less. We can't just advocate for our own rights as a small group, we have to advocate for a much broader group. I personally don't believe that non-violent felons or those convicted of a misdemeanor should lose their 2A rights. YMMV I guess...

 

[drgrant]

Just like someone who becomes a prohibited person over a white-collar felony.

FWIW some classes of white collar felony crimes are exempt from prohibited person status... I think securities fraud, for example, is specifically exempt.

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

I don't think this is a big of a problem as you make it out to be. A lot of those people convicted may still be statutorily disqualified by other means, eg, other state laws, or convictions which trip the normal FIP provisions. I doubt any of that is going away. For that matter, I kind of doubt that Lautenberg will be going away, as it will likely fall under the "reasonable restrictions" BS that was reaffirmed in Heller.

IMO the only way that FIP/Lauttenberg is going to go (or at least get "judicially modified" to be more 2A compatible) is if a specific case makes it to the supremes over that specific issue- otherwise they will refuse to touch it.

-Mike

Agreed!!

Many people are failing to acknowledge/understand/accept the open door that "reasonable restrictions" will allow for.