Re: unconstitutional

More | Report Post

Loss of gun rights under the Amendment you refer to [The
Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968,
effective 30 September 1996] allows for the "collateral
consequence" of the loss of the right to own a gun.

I agree that it sounds like a thin distinction but it is
pretty much a part of law from way back. A "collateral
consequence" is not a criminal punishment per se.

There are literally hundreds of statutes rules and
regulations in every state and also under federal law that
impose "collateral consequences" for a criminal conviction. I
just completed a compilation of all "collateral consequences"
in our state as part of a national project to identify and
catalogue "collateral consequences" in all 50 states. I
found over 200 in our state alone.

For example; if you want to get a license to operate a "blind
vendor outlet" in a state building, you may not have a
conviction involving moral turpitude within the last 5 years;
a methamphetamine conviction will get you booted out of
public housing; any felony conviction will prevent you from
getting a Realtor's license---on and on---

Courts do not have to notify you of any possible "collateral
consequences" if you enter a guilty plea with the exception
of the effect it may have on deportation proceedings--that's
the only one considered more than a mere "collateral
consequence."

Not saying I agree with the Amendmant but it is unlikely to
be found unconstitutional or overturned on other grounds
anytime in our lifetime.

On 11/20/07, Stewart wrote:
> The Lautenberg Amendment sounds to me to violate many
> amendments of the U.S Constitution. What does everyone
> think? What can we do as citizens to get this law recended
> so we citizens can have our rights back. I mean what if you
> plead guilty in 1994 to D.V and then this law comes around
> 3 years later, would you have plead guilty if you knew this
> waa coming? They say that this amandment is not an ex post
> facto law because you are not being punished again for the
> crime. But if not for the original crime, they could not
> keep you from a fire arm. So this law does bounce off the
> original charge, thus making it ex post facto. Why can't
> judges see this?