Misdemeanor "loop hole"

[panayoti]

Some states discussing misdemeanors as reason to prohibit firearms ownership. What a slippery slope.

 

[dlbleak]

Got a link? Most of us could name the states in a couple tries

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

The Lautenberg Amendment has been prohibiting firearms purchases, possession and ownership for some petty offense or even municipal charges if they're domestic violence related in all 50 states since 1996.

Even if the conviction was prior to the law taking effect...even though ex post facto punishment is supposed to be unconstitutional.

 

[Chuckie]

The Lautenberg Amendment has been prohibiting firearms purchases, possession and ownership for some petty offense or even municipal charges if they're domestic violence related in all 50 states since 1996.

Even if the conviction was prior to the law taking effect...even though ex post facto punishment is supposed to be unconstitutional.

" . . . ex post facto punishment is supposed to be unconstitutional. "

There is nothing in our Constitution that prevents someone from receiving additional punishments (such as prohibited possession of weapon/ammunition) in addition to another punishment as the result of a crime, even after the fact (post facto). The only thing you are protected from is "Double Jeopardy" which is being tried and convicted of the same or similar crime more than once.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

You're right...the Constitution doesn't mention ex post facto punishment. But there is mention of "ex post facto" laws in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

But, SCOTUS has ruled that ex post facto punishment is, in fact, unconstitutional:

What Constitutes Punishment​

In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions:

• "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto."

Source: ex post facto

Maybe it's just my opinion, but saying someone who was convicted of a misdemeanor (or lesser) offense that is DV related, and who satisfied their fines/punishment/sentence, is prohibited forever from owning or possessing a firearm, even if the offense was committed decades prior to the passage of that amendment, is definitely being punished ex post facto.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

And I know it's been challenged on several grounds and always been upheld. But that doesn't make it right.