I need some advice

imported post

I know that this is kinda off topic for an open carry forum, but this is pretty much the only gun forum that I look at, so I thought some of you might be able to give me some advice.

My father in law went out and bought a new gun right before deer opener this year. Sale goes through fine, and the shop gives him his rifle.

Fast forward a few days, and he gets a message to return a call to an agent at the Department of Justice...

He returns the call and it ends up the person he is calling is a female BATFE agent.

She tells him that he is prohibited from owning a firearm by the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban" (aka the Lautenberg Amendment)

She tells him that he needs to get rid of the gun immediately, and that she is emailing him affidavits that he will need to fill out and return to her stating who the gun went to, etc.

The thing is, he has never been convicted of Domestic Violence. He was arrested during a domestic dispute in 1991, and was convicted of Disorderly Conduct. I went and looked at WCCAP page, and this conviction doesn't even show up.

He kindly explained all of this to the BATFE agent, and she basically told him he was screwed, and he shouldn't bother fighting this.

So the advice I am looking for is where should he even start fighting this? Does anybody know? This entire thing is wrong. He isnt a rich guy, he works as a CNC machinist. He cant really afford lawyers.

Any advice would be much appreciated. After reading up on this Lautenberg Amendment, it seems absolutely illegal. The conditions of the law apply RETROACTIVLY?!? It was my understanding that you cant make retroactive laws.

Otherwise the ATF would have outright banned machine guns in '86 if they could have correct?

Thanks
Pierre

imported post

Hopefully he did not admit to owning any other guns during this phonecall, because Ibelieve thatthe BATFEmay be able to use that admissionto do a search and seizure of any and all other firearmsin the home.

Anyways, I would have your father "Gift" that rifle to you (along with any other gun he is in possession of) for safe keeping until this is straightened out.
And for him not tofill out any of the BATFEforms or affidavits, withoutfirst contacting and getting guidance froman attorney at his earliest convenience.

Is he an activemember of the NRA?
This could get real ugly for your father if this is not handled correctly and very quickly in the correct manner.

His constitutional rights are being trampled IMO, and I highly doubt the ACLU will help with this due to their opinion &national stance on private firearm ownership.

Good luck, and please be careful if these federalthugs decide to storm his home

imported post

He only admitted to owning that one firearm. The firearm that started this mess was already gifted to his eldest son.

He is already expecting them to show up at his door with a warrant to toss his house...

imported post

I can't speak to the issue as a whole but your question about retroactive laws is (unfortunately) incorrect. Sort of.

I don't believe they could pass a law that says it is illegal, retroactively, to wear a red shirt and then arrest you for having wore a red shirt prior to the law.

But they can take into account prior actions in order to prohibit future actions.

For example, I had a DWI in 1991 and later, I forget the exact dates, the 5 or 10 year span was just about up for that conviction to fall off my record and then wham, they passed a new law (at that time) taking into account all DWI convictions back to 1988. And if I recall correctly, that conviction now counts lifelong. While I'm not being punished directly, that new indirect consideration exists for the future, whereas it did not exist at the time I was convicted.

If that makes any sense. I know what I'm talking about but what I wrote seems convoluted even to me.

imported post

If the DC charge arose out of anything other than an assault or battery to a person concidered a domestic relation to your father in law then it is not truely a domestic violence offence but the BATFE has the "kill them all and let God sort them out" attitude.

imported post

gbu28 wrote:

I can't speak to the issue as a whole but your question about retroactive laws is (unfortunately) incorrect. Sort of.

Click to expand...

Would that be covered under "Ex Post Facto"? (spelling?)

I do not think it would, a D-V conviction is a disqualifying event, the law was passed to prohibit anyone convicted of D-V at any time to be prohibited from any future purchases.

Example:
Lets say there is no law against swinging on telephone lines and you are seen by policedoing it, although a law can be passed prohibiting the act leter on, the policecannot go back and arrest you retroactively. But if you swing on those lines againafter the law was passed, you can be charged

The Lautenberg BS is different. If you have been convicted of D-V at anytime, it prohibits you from purchasing, It is very clear.
But your father wasnot convictedon D-V. Maybe he was charged with it, and that got plead down to a D-C. Was he charged with domestic violence?
If So, I do not see how a charge that was not convicted can be a disqualifier since were are alleged to be innocent until proven guilty. Sounds like the BATFE is forgetting that little fact.

I suggest you father at least gets the records of his arrest and what he was convicted on, find out why the BATFE is prohibiting him, and if the record in in error, try to see what can be done to get it corrected. It may require an attorney, or it may not.
It is the little crap like this that can screw you up, I once plead "No Contest" to a charge, but the court clerk mistakenly wrote that I plead guilty. I caught it before leaving the court room, brough it to her attention, she argued that it does not matter, and I had to have the judge correct her and re-do the paperwork.
A plea of "No-Contest" is not admitting guilt, while guilty plea is! Down the line that mistake could bite you in the ass real hard.

imported post

There is good news, WI courts recently vacated a man’s conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Here's the article from the Wisconsin Law Journal:

http://www.wislawjournal.com/articl...ed-State-statute-may-violate-Second-Amendment

imported post

Yes, I believe he was initially charged with domestic abuse and plead down to D.C.

Like I said in my initial post, We tried to check it out on WCCAP but it isnt even on there.

I'm guessing if we contact the clerk of courts where this happened they could pull the court transcript or court record (or something)

imported post

Yes, they should be able to. That should clear thing up with out a lawyer too.

imported post

we need Interceptor Knight to chime in on this, he is the expert ! he's knows EVERYTHING about this stuff..you might want to PM him.

imported post

Glock34 wrote:

we need Interceptor Knight to chime in on this, he is the expert ! he's knows EVERYTHING about this stuff..you might want to PM him.

Click to expand...

lol

imported post

Following is an information memo issued by the Army Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. It describes the effect of the Lautenberg amendment on our soldiers. Can you imagine that thise very soldiers that protect our country are prohibited from possessing private firearms?

Note that paragraph 2a. states that they must be convicted of the crime of domestic violence. Also ex post facto may be an issue concerning situations that took place before September 1996. A lawyer's advice is definitely needed. It is needed because it involves more than just firearms it also prohibits a person convicted of domestic violence to even possess ammunition.



[size=2 ALIGN="CENTER"]INFORMATION PAPER[/size]

SUBJECT: Army Implementation of the Lautenberg Amendment

1. Purpose. To provide information on the Army's implementation of the Lautenberg Amendment.

2. Facts:

a. The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction.

b. Government personnel are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment. DoD issued interim guidance on 22 October 1997 and the Army issued interim guidance by ALARACT message on 15 January 1998. Under the interim DoD and Army policies, applicable worldwide, commanders:

(1) will notify all soldiers that it is unlawful to possess firearms and ammunition if they have a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (qualifying conviction);

(2) will conduct local unit files checks and will report soldiers known to have qualifying convictions and soldiers reasonably believed to have such convictions to HQDA through command channels. A MILPER Message (MILPER Message 99-159, CDRPERSCOM, TAPC-PDO-IP, 252145Z May 99, subject: Procedural Guidance on the Reporting of Soldiers Affected by the Lautenberg Amendment) provides updated instructions on reporting soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment to PERSCOM.

(3) will detail soldiers whom commanders have reason to believe have a qualifying conviction to duties that do not require the bearing of weapons or ammunition;

(4) may not take adverse action solely on the basis of an inability to possess a firearm or ammunition due to a qualifying conviction if the act that led to the conviction occurred on or before 30 September 1996 (but may initiate action, including bars to reenlistment or elimination on the basis of an inability to possess a firearm or ammunition, if the act that led to the conviction occurred after that date).

(5) may initiate involuntary separation actions on the basis of the conduct that led to the qualifying conviction, or for a civilian conviction (under AR 635-200, para 14-5), regardless of when the misconduct or conviction occurred.

c. Summary court-martial convictions, non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, and deferred prosecutions (or similar alternative dispositions) in civilian court do not constitute qualifying convictions within the meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment.

d. The DoD and Army policies do not apply to major weapons systems or crew served weapons such as tanks, missiles and aircraft.

e. The DoD and Army policies also apply to privately owned firearms and ammunition. Commanders must therefore establish procedures addressing soldiers with qualifying convictions who store privately owned weapons in unit arms rooms. Procedures may allow soldiers to sell or transfer their weapons to authorized persons directly without taking physical possession of the weapons in violation of the Lautenberg Amendment.

f. The Army issued additional guidance by ALARACT message on 21 May 1999, which deals with the deployment, assignment, reenlistment and reporting of soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment. Under the additional Army guidance:

(1) all soldiers known to have, or soldiers whom commanders have reasonable cause to believe have, a conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence are non-deployable for missions that require possession of firearms or ammunition;

(2) soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment are not eligible for overseas assignment, however, soldiers who have already exercised any portion of their PCS entitlements will comply with their overseas assignment; all OCONUS based soldiers will continue to comply with their assignment instructions;

(3) commanders will ensure that newly arrived or assigned soldiers with qualifying convictions or those whom commanders have reasonable cause to believe have convictions of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence will not be assigned or attached to TOE or MTOE units and will be denied appointment to leadership positions that would give them access to firearms and ammunition;

(4) soldiers with qualifying convictions or those whom commanders have reasonable cause to believe have convictions of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence are not authorized to attend any service school where instruction with individual weapons or ammunition is part of the curriculum;

(5) soldiers with qualifying convictions or those whom commanders have reasonable cause to believe have convictions of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence are not authorized to reenlist but may extend for one year if otherwise qualified; and

(6) commanders will report all soldiers identified as non-deployable under this policy in accordance with the MILPER message issued on 25 May 1999.

g. Commanders may seek additional information and assistance from their staff judge advocates. Soldiers who need individual assistance should contact a legal assistance attorney.

The link to the PERSCOM message about procedural guidance on the reporting of soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment is below.

http://www-perscom.army.mil/tagd/msg/99-159.htm

imported post

Here is a web site that contains a report from the CRS (legal advice body for the U.S. Congress)

http://www.vlp.org/dvconference/lautenberg.pdf

Note that in the report the Lautenberg act has been ruled by courts to apply todomestic violence convictionsprior to enactment of the Lautenberg Act.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

we need Interceptor Knight to chime in on this, he is the expert ! he's knows EVERYTHING about this stuff..you might want to PM him.

Click to expand...

lol

Click to expand...

I was actually being serious, he really does know his stuff. I have know him for about 5 years.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

we need Interceptor Knight to chime in on this, he is the expert ! he's knows EVERYTHING about this stuff..you might want to PM him.

Click to expand...

lol

Click to expand...

+1 Sycophancy or sockpuppet promoting the puppeteer?

Merry Christmas and Shalom aleichem

imported post

pierre wrote:

My father in law went out and bought a new gun right before deer opener this year. Sale goes through fine, and the shop gives him his rifle.

Fast forward a few days, and he gets a message to return a call to an agent at the Department of Justice...

Click to expand...

Something else just occurred to me as I was reading through Lammies' informative post about how the lautenberg act affects the militrary. One side of my brain shut down due to the alphabet soup and legalease being annoying, but the other half just kept on ticking away.

In the quote above, I highlighted the words "Fast Forward a few days".
It is my understanding that any and all records pertaining to the NICS background check are supposed to be destroyed within a 24 hours of their approval. Since the FBI NICS bureau gave the go-ahead on this sale, how did these records survive those few extra days to be further investigated by the BATFE???
Isn't that considered breaking federally mandated procedures on records destruction? Could this be used against the Fed's forbreaking the law?

Something I found comical, Soldiers disqualified under the Lautenberg BS are not able to possess GI small arms, but tanks, aircraft, and major weapons system are not off-limits. How friggin ridiculous is that all from this douchebag from New Jersey.
But hey, if you have a partner of the same sex, you can now get married in NJ, Nut just don't ever try to defend yourself. What a joke! It is almost to the point where almostall the coastline statesof the US should just be pushed into the oceans and we would be better off.

imported post

Sounds to me like the government is once again trying to overstep their authority, and put the squeeze on a citizen. My response to the fed would be: You want to talk to me? Get a warrant, and make damn sure my lawyer is present. And indeed, get yourself a lawyer who will intervene on your behalf, and correct the government's mis-information, and hold them at bay from further violating your rights. Government dirtbags!

imported post

The following web site will give you all the information you want to know about NICS and a lot of information you may not want to know. There is a link on the left side of the main page panel that gives information on domestic violence.



http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm

I re-iterate: The requirement is a conviction of domestic violence. If there is no conviction there is no justification for denial of firearm or ammunition possession. IANL

imported post

I'm not sure about the feds but the state requires the dealer to send a copy of the handgun transfer to them within 24 hrs. What do they do with the actual copies?
Pretty soon, I think we'll see that if you're stopped by the police for anything, they'll be told that you own firearms, even specific calibers and that for officer safety, you should be considered a high risk stop.

DC and "failure to obey a lawful order" are catchalls for some police that feel the need to give someone a citation(sometimes deserved). If DC was a reason to permanently lose your firearm rights, there'd be a lot more "prohibited" persons.

imported post

mr. parker wrote:

"failure to obey a lawful order"

Click to expand...

Do you have a statute number for the "Failure to obey" quote above?
That sounds like a real bullschitt deal.
At what point does one need to obey an order that may or may not be lawful? And what is considered a lawful order?
To my current knowledge, WI has no "Failure to obey" statute.