Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.
That's not exactly correct:
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1]
Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restraining order provision) ought to be vulnerable now. However, I really doubt that Court would be willing to reexamine this in the current context, since in Emerson it was judged Constitutional. [2]
Given that restraining orders are handed out like candy and have been used to strip future victims of self-protection, it indeed ought to be vulnerable now. We'll see; that and the ex post facto nature of Lautenberg really need revision, since the prior regimes for both didn't take into consideration that a restraining order or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would strip someone of a fundamental right.
Comments
Nope, the "Lautenberg Amendment" makes ownership etc. illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic crimes.
That's not exactly correct:
The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. [1]
Logically, then I think that the latter part (about the domestic restraining order provision) ought to be vulnerable now. However, I really doubt that Court would be willing to reexamine this in the current context, since in Emerson it was judged Constitutional. [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_...
Given that restraining orders are handed out like candy and have been used to strip future victims of self-protection, it indeed ought to be vulnerable now. We'll see; that and the ex post facto nature of Lautenberg really need revision, since the prior regimes for both didn't take into consideration that a restraining order or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction would strip someone of a fundamental right.