Figured Lautenmummy would be due for a Stroke right about now................
This is a discussion on Lautenberg Amendment - Looking to challenge it in Federal Court within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm working with an attorney to challenge the Lautenberg Amendment in Federal Court. This has been tried in the past and has failed. However, I ...
I'm working with an attorney to challenge the Lautenberg Amendment in Federal Court. This has been tried in the past and has failed. However, I attempted to purcahse a handgun for protection and was denied. My argument is that I'm being denied the ability to protect myself and my family as is my fiance who wants to buy a handgun. She is afraid her purchase would open me up to be charged as violating the amendment. I'm in Maine. I was unaware of the Amendment. I plead no-contest 10 years ago to an assault charge alleged by my now ex-wife. I won't get into the details. It was a minor offense of pinching when we were fooling around. It was not an issue until she wanted to gain an upper hand in our divorce and child custody case. I was advised a misdemenor assault charge would not keep me from owning firearm (come from a long line of collectors, hunters etc). so to save money for my divorce case I plead non-contes to avoid a costly trial.
I also tried to re-enlist in the military around the same time I attempted to purcahse a handgun. I cannot re-enlist in the military.
I'm curious as to if there are people out there in the same/similiar situation.
I'm starting an organization to challenge the Amendment. I need to raise dollars for the fight. So if anyone could be of help, money, network or knowledge I would appreciate it.
I do want to say I do not support Domestic Abusers having firearms. That said, some of us make mistakes, some of us are falsely accused and some of us paid our debt and haven't re-offended. We are responisble citizens in healthy relationships with children and careers. These people are not "abusers" and should have an ability to seek relief.
Figured Lautenmummy would be due for a Stroke right about now................
Keep working with your atty. If your fight is righteous I wish you luck. As for fundraising, no offense but not this man, not without knowing a whole lot more about you and this organization you've started. I'm always a wee bit leery of people who's very first post is talking about a monumental effort they're attempting, and at the same time asking for donations. Again, if you are on the up and up I wish you luck. Perhaps you can participate in the forum and we can get to know you and your efforts better. You may have better luck gaining support then.
ETA: Oh, and welcome to the forum!
I bet you don't plead No-Contest again. You've screwed the pooch. If they have legitimate grounds to deny you based on your conviction, you have no case; You haven't been "wrongly" denied. You need to contact a lawyer about getting your plea reversed rather than take on a federal court. Your odds will be better.
Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
Also, check into the law more in depth. I have a friend who was convicted of and sentenced for a crime involving a firearm. He did the time, and has not re-offended, and now is a great guy. I've been working with him on getting a gun. First off I wouldn't help him if I didn't honestly believe that he was responsible enough to use it correctly, but, anyway, he is eligible to own now since it has been more than five years since he was released from prison and has been on the straight and narrow. So, you might check into that and see if there is a way for you to get it since according to you, you have been doing well since then. I'm not even close to knowing all the law so what I'm saying may not even have any affect on you.
I also agree with SmokinFool about the money situation. We don't know you and, given our natural skepticism, being the type of people that we generally tend to be as CCWers and firearms owners we are not going to give $$ to someone or a cause we know nothing about. And, it doesn't help that you didn't bother to introduce yourself but, instead just jumped right in to asking for money. Take care.
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” --George Washington
I was in the Army when this passed. We were jumping through hoops trying to figure out how to handle servicemen who had a qualifying conviction years earlier, but were soon to be disqualified from carrying a firearm. So much for ex post facto.
DoD released a memo saying combat troops would have to find a new job or be discharged. I was artillery then. CSS could stay in if they didn't deploy or have a job requiring carrying a weapon. When I deployed in 2005 (with a non divisional CSS company), we had two soldiers who were allowed to serve, but were non deployable.
Good luck. You have my full support.
This amendment has been abused beyond all reason. It has become a tool in disarming good U.S. citizens.
I once worked with a LEO who pinched (sort of) a waitress he had known for many years, it was a harmless and even friendly act, but she went stupid on him.
He lost his job and an "unalienable civil right" due to the deliberate misapplication of this law.
I have seen it abused many other times, as well.
For those who have been abused by this law, check here: Restoration of Gun Rights, Restore Firearm Rights, Domestic Violence | RecordGone.com
Retired Deputy- State Trooper (38 long years) 8 yrs RTO - MS Degree- Criminology
Gun Control measures are Unconstitutional Infringements. Period.
"...He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"- Luke 22:36
That was a law that should have never been passed.
I think that it could be won on the "ex post facto" argument alone. Of course, the current Supremes pretty much do as they please so all bets are off there.
That and the misdemeanor clause is ridiculous. Many people have been denied the right to defense themselves or their family's because of the wording in there.
This is legislation that needs to be abolished out right and anyone that voted for it brought up on charges of treason because there is nothing Constitutional about it.
However, that doesn't seem to matter these days does it?
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
Similar situation here. I was in a declining marriage and my ex played the "he hit me" card. Of course, I was arrested and subsequently convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery. Unfortunately, I'm in Virginia. If the charge would have been upgraded to a felony, I would have the ability under Virginia law to pursue a pardon. However, since it is only a misdemeanor, a pardon is not possible. So, the next option is an Expungement. But, of course, Virginia has a law that says no misdemeanor convictions can be expunged.
The net result is I now have to serve a lifetime sentence for a falsely obtained misdemeanor crime. Effectively, so does my new wife. We can't own a home defense firearm because the the presumption would be that I would have access to it.
My wife has committed no crime yet she is being unconstitutionally denied her right to a home defense firearm.
HOWEVER, in the Army you must qualify with your weapon as one step to remaining eligible for promotion. The Lautenberg Amendment forbids the possession of small weapons. So affected soldier cannot qualify with assigned weapons and thereby are placed in a non-promotable status. Once in a non-promotable status they are no longer eligible for reenlistment.
While I was on Active Duty, soldiers who find themselves affected by the Lautenberg Amendment could request to be discharged for the good of the service.
Here is a great link for military folks http://www.monterey.army.mil/legal/m..._amendment.pdf
Also it is my understanding that getting the conviction removed does not affect them and the Lautenberg Amendment, they need to have their Govenor or the President pardon them... but then again I am not a lawyer or pretend to be one
US Army Retired (2002)
PAFOA.com, NAGR, USCCA, and NRA Life member
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity" unknown
"Dare in Brocca" - Beretta
I smell trolls here!
"If someone gets into your house which would you rather have, a handgun or a phone? You can call the police if you want, and they’ll get there; and they’ll take a picture of your dead body."
Black Rifles Matter
I wish you the best, but I think you are wasting money. But this could work
A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.