HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » supreme court will decide... » Reply #9

Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 19, 2014, 12:11 AM

9. I don't read it as a question of overturning the Lautenberg Amendment, but

rather a question of who it applies to.

The Lautenberg amendment (from 18 USC 922g) says that:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

...

(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The case seems to relate to the definition of physical force and domestic violence, which is addressed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33):

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), [2] the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that—
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal [3] law; and
(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

So in my very-very-much-not-a-lawyer opinion, it seems that the question for the USSC is how much "physical force" is required to trigger the ban - were it up to me, the answer would be "very little"...

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
niyad Jan 2014 OP
niyad Jan 2014 #1
Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #2
Wounded Bear Jan 2014 #3
niyad Jan 2014 #5
niyad Jan 2014 #4
NutmegYankee Jan 2014 #6
Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #7
niyad Jan 2014 #11
JJChambers Jan 2014 #14
Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #17
niyad Jan 2014 #20
Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #29
niyad Jan 2014 #30
Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #32
niyad Jan 2014 #33
NutmegYankee Jan 2014 #13
geek tragedy Jan 2014 #39
LineLineReply I don't read it as a question of overturning the Lautenberg Amendment, but
petronius Jan 2014 #9
geek tragedy Jan 2014 #40
Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #8
hack89 Jan 2014 #28
niyad Jan 2014 #31
hack89 Jan 2014 #34
niyad Jan 2014 #35
hack89 Jan 2014 #36
niyad Jan 2014 #37
hack89 Jan 2014 #38
redqueen Jan 2014 #10
niyad Jan 2014 #12
Lancero Jan 2014 #18
niyad Jan 2014 #21
frazzled Jan 2014 #15
niyad Jan 2014 #16
kcr Jan 2014 #19
PeaceNikki Jan 2014 #25
kcr Jan 2014 #26
PeaceNikki Jan 2014 #27
ecstatic Jan 2014 #22
niyad Jan 2014 #23
Solly Mack Jan 2014 #24
redqueen Jan 2014 #41
Please login to view edit histories.