Re: Lautenberg amendment
Posted by Chris on 3/15/07

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.

Posts on this thread, including this one

• Lautenberg amendment, 3/08/07, by Bryce.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 3/15/07, by Chris.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 4/24/07, by To All!!!!!!!.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 4/28/07, by Concerned Citizen.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 6/11/07, by Arla.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 12/24/07, by Greg R..
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 12/24/07, by Curmudgeon.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 12/28/07, by Bryce.
• Re: Lautenberg amendment, 3/11/08, by George C.