Re: Lautenberg amendment

More | Report Post

Arla, I am sorry that that happened to you and your husband. It is
a shame that he and others like him have to pay like that over
this stupid law. To the ex-marine. You are right that there is
more to this than protecting DV victims, this is about just
another way for our lovely government to try and control tha
masses, another way to pass gun restriction laws like they want.
This law does really not protect anyone. Most couples where DV
happens do not stay together, so there is really no use in this
law. If a person wants a gun and has intent to use it this law
will not stop that person as it does not stop criuminally minded
people. Arla, this crazy law would have stopped your husband from
owning/possessing a gun even if the charge was prior to the law as
it is retroactive, even for people that plead guilty 20 year
before the law was enacted. That is an ex post facto law, which is
unconstitutional even if the Bush boys who sit on the Supreme
court will not admit to it, as they are helping the government
strip away our rights daily. I was stabbed by my ex in the back of
the thigh, she came at me again and I pushed her away to keep her
from grabbing the knife and possibly stabbing me again. The knife
was still sticking in my leg when the pokice arrived. Guess who
got arested and went to jail? Yep, me. I plead guilty because I
admitted to pushing her, but the judge would not listen to me that
is was in self defense. I am 6'4 and weigh 270 lbs. My ex is 5'2
and weighs about 100 lbs. So I guess because I am a big guy, I am
guilty and a bad person. If I would have no this law was going to
written and known what the ramifications were, I would have NEVER
plead guilty for protecting myself. This law is wrong, especially
for me and others who plead guilty before this law was enacted.
Talk about being violated.

On 12/24/07, Greg R. wrote:
> On 6/11/07, Arla wrote:
>> On 3/15/07, Chris wrote:
>>> On 3/08/07, Bryce wrote:
>>>> I plead guilty to a D.V charge in 1994. Not knowing this
>>>> stupid law would come into effect, otherwise I would have
>>>> took it to trial and won since all I did was push her away
>>>> from me after he stabbed me in the back of my thigh with a
>>>> btcher knife. Since this law came into effect in 1996/1997
>>>> and now I can't own a gun, isn't this then an ex post
>>>> facto law, which is unonstitutional. I know case law says
>>>> no, because ou are being punihed by the new law, not the
>>>> D.V. But without the D.V. the new law would not have a
>>>> recourse. therefore the new law is contingent upon the
>>>> D.V. thus making it ex post facto. Am I wrong here? Are we
>>>> going to stand and allow this blatent violation of the
>>>> Contitution go unpunished.
>>>
>>> This has been going on for 10 years. There have been a
>>> couple attempts at a repeal, but Congress does not seem to
>>> want to revisit the issue. To do so may make them appear to
>>> support Domestic Violence and Not the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Again, Write your Congress and tell them how you feel.
>>>
>>> This should be a matter for the Supreme Court, but I don't
>>> think they will ever consider it
>> This is so sureal. I am a wife of a wonderful husband whom has
>> helped raise my kids since they were very little (they are not
>> his biological). He did not have to suffer all the turmoil a
>> teenager can put on you through the years but has done so due
>> to the love that lies so deep. To get on with why I am
>> responding to your posting is that I came from a very abusive
>> marriage before I met my current husband. I was very young
>> when I got with the curr hus and thought all men hit. No
>> affence but after a battle with the x I knew no better. In any
>> event when my curr hus tried to leave during an argument one
>> evening back in 1997. I stood in front of him pushing him over
>> and over again telling him I would not stand for it. At that
>> time he pushed me away from the door saying he was not going
>> to fight with me. After he had been gone for about an hour, I
>> left and went to my sisters house. She told me she had heard
>> he was seen with another women prior to this evening. In
>> complete anger I called the police department wanting him
>> removed from our home. I met the police at my home where my
>> curr hus was sound asleep. I dont recall but am sure I did not
>> want him jailed as I know deep within that he never tried to
>> hurt me and as a matter a fact he was trying to avoid a
>> physical altercation. The police arrested him anyway. We got
>> over the thought of another women and have been happily
>> togather for about 10 years. He rejoined the Military just
>> after 9/11 and they swore him in even with this on his record.
>> It has popped up before since my husband rejoined the Military
>> but I still did not know the severety of the Lautenberg
>> Ammendment. We have kept hope alive. Last night my husband
>> shared an ugly truth that he did not want to share with me. He
>> told me that about a month ago he was pulled into the JAG
>> office and was relieved of his Military duty due to the
>> Lautenberg Amendment. Back then I never apeared in court
>> because I knew it was not right. The State picked up all
>> charges. He plead guilty not knowing he may have a winning
>> chance. OK call me a liar but I was very young and immature
>> but now my husband has to deal with it. And now it is like he
>> is being convicted twice for a charge that he already paid for
>> and one he is not even guilty of. And to think if the D.V.
>> charge had took place before the Ammendment, he would not be
>> going through this. There are some real awful people out there
>> that will never suffer this due to the fact that thier
>> conviction took place before 1996. I love him and feel so
>> guilty myself. Yes, you may not get to many wives admiting to
>> stupidity but this is just not fair. I will try to get a word
>> out to congress. Thank you for your encouraging message.
> I just finished reading your story and I feel so mad! I too had
> a story where my military career was damaged because of this
> amendment. In my case my ex-wife flat out lied about the abuse
> all because of a fight we had related to her friends which I
> wasn't fond of. She told the police that I beat her and
> threatened to kill her and all of her family. There must've been
> over a hundred cops at the house when they came to arrest me. I
> was charged with just about everything though nothing was ever
> prooven the state picked up the charges and I got screwed! I
> spent three months in the county jail awaiting trial. Since they
> were unable to get a conviction out of me they told me that they
> were going to finally release me to the Marines, once I pleaded
> guilty that was, they lied. Upon being released I was picked up
> by the Marines and spent an additional three months in the brig.
> I was eventually discharge with a Bad Conduct Discharge, demoted
> to a private a lost pay. The end result of all of this I am now
> a convicted felon 4th deree aggravated assault and after working
> for a few years in my home state on NJ where everything
> happened, I since moved with my new family to Florida and this
> backgroung has kept me from getting jobs that I've been more
> than qualify. The Lautenberg Amendment is the socialists means
> to keep people from being able to fight back when our
> politicians eventually make the shift from free nation to a
> socialist one, that's just my opinion but there are many more
> reasons for this bill than just to protect D.V victims.