Eleanor Finch
The Lautenberg Amendment, also known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, is a widely recognised amendment to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The amendment bans anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition. The amendment was enacted in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Since its enactment, there have been questions about its constitutionality, with some arguing that it infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The amendment has been challenged in court several times, with cases such as United States v. Emerson (2002) and United States v. Chovan (2013) ruling on its constitutionality.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Name of Amendment | Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban |
| Other Names | Lautenberg Amendment, Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence |
| What it Does | Bans access to firearms for life by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence |
| Who it Applies to | Anyone with an offense involving misdemeanor domestic violence, including members of the police force or military |
| What it Does Not Do | Take away a person's right to vote or be on a jury |
| What it Does Not Apply to | Individuals convicted of felony domestic violence |
| What it Does Not Cover | Service firearms for members of the military while on duty |
| Who Sponsored it | Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) |
| When Passed | 1996 |
| When Challenged | United States v. Emerson (No. 99-10331) (5th Cir. 2001), United States v. Chovan (2013), United States v. Hayes (2009), United States v. Castleman (2014), Voisine v. United States (2016) |
| When Extended | 2014, 2016 |
| When Narrowed | 2022 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The Lautenberg Amendment bans firearm possession for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanours
- The Amendment has been deemed constitutional, despite challenges in court
- The Amendment applies to police and military personnel, removing their exemption
- The Amendment has been extended to reckless misdemeanours, not just violent crimes
- The Amendment has been criticised for infringing on the Second Amendment
The Lautenberg Amendment bans firearm possession for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanours
The Lautenberg Amendment, also known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, was enacted in 1996 as an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. The amendment bans firearm possession for individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanours, including assault or attempted assault on a family member. It is named after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and aims to keep firearms out of the hands of those with domestic violence convictions.
The amendment has been challenged in court on several occasions, with some arguing that it is unconstitutional to deprive certain individuals of the right to bear arms. However, in United States v. Emerson (2002), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the amendment, stating that the Second Amendment does not guarantee anyone the right to keep and bear arms. This decision was reaffirmed in United States vs Chovan (2013) by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment is constitutional.
The Lautenberg Amendment has also been extended to include those convicted of reckless misdemeanour domestic violence crimes, as decided by the Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States (2016). This decision has been controversial, as individuals can now be stripped of their constitutional right to bear arms based on a minor offence. In 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which narrowed the "boyfriend loophole" by expanding the Lautenberg Amendment to include individuals in "significant dating relationships."
The Lautenberg Amendment has had a significant impact on firearm ownership in the United States, becoming one of the most common reasons for individuals to be denied their right to own a firearm. It is important to note that the amendment does not only affect an individual's ability to own a firearm but can also impact their job and career, especially for members of the armed forces and law enforcement.
Hyde Amendment: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
The Amendment has been deemed constitutional, despite challenges in court
The Lautenberg Amendment, also known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, was enacted in 1996 as an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. The Amendment bans individuals convicted of domestic violence-related misdemeanours from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition. This includes members of law enforcement and the military.
Despite its positive goals, the Amendment has faced legal challenges. In 1999, the case of United States v. Emerson ruled that the Amendment was unconstitutional. However, this decision was reversed in 2001 on appeal. The Amendment was also deemed constitutional in the 2013 case of United States vs Chovan. In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Amendment did not take away a person's right to vote or serve on a jury.
In 2014, the Supreme Court extended the reach of the Lautenberg Amendment to include misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence committed knowingly or intentionally. This was further extended in 2016 to include reckless misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence. This decision has been criticised for potentially infringing on constitutional rights, as individuals can now be stripped of their right to bear arms based on minor offences.
While there have been challenges to its interpretation and application, the Lautenberg Amendment has been deemed constitutional by federal courts. It continues to serve as a federal law prohibiting the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of domestic violence offences, including misdemeanours.
Amending the Georgia Constitution: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
The Amendment applies to police and military personnel, removing their exemption
The Lautenberg Amendment, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, bans the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The Amendment is an addition to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996.
The Amendment has been challenged in court, with some arguing that it is unconstitutional. However, in United States vs Chovan (2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment is constitutional. The court stated that the Amendment does not take away a person's right to vote or serve on a jury, and therefore, a person's civil rights are not affected.
The Lautenberg Amendment has had a significant impact on the careers of military and law enforcement officers. Due to their inability to possess firearms, many individuals in these professions have lost their jobs. The Amendment also affects individuals who have not been convicted of domestic violence, as it designates these incidents as the only misdemeanors that trigger a lifetime ban on firearm ownership, possession, and transfer.
Presidential Succession: Which Constitutional Amendment?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Amendment has been extended to reckless misdemeanours, not just violent crimes
The Lautenberg Amendment, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, is a widely known federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanours. The Amendment was enacted to reduce the risk of firearm use in domestic violence cases. It is important to note that the Amendment can impact individuals who have not been convicted of domestic violence.
While the Amendment's goals are stated as positive, the implementation of the law has resulted in some unintended consequences. One significant challenge is the ""landmine effect", where individuals may unknowingly violate the Amendment, facing felony charges at the federal level. This often occurs when an individual pleads guilty to a lesser charge, such as disturbing the peace, to avoid prosecution for domestic violence. The retroactive nature of the Lautenberg Amendment further complicates this issue, as it applies to misdemeanour domestic violence convictions prior to its introduction.
In 2014, the Supreme Court extended the reach of the Lautenberg Amendment to include misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence committed knowingly or intentionally. This extension aimed to protect victims of domestic violence by ensuring that perpetrators convicted of such crimes would be prohibited from possessing firearms.
However, in 2016, the Supreme Court's decision in Voisine v. United States further extended the Lautenberg Amendment to include reckless misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence. This decision has sparked controversy, as individuals convicted of minor infractions that are not inherently violent can now be stripped of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The extension of the Amendment to reckless misdemeanours has raised concerns about the loss of fundamental constitutional rights based on minor offences.
The Lautenberg Amendment's extension to reckless misdemeanours has shifted its focus beyond solely violent crimes. This expansion has prompted discussions about clarifying the Amendment's language to better protect victims of domestic violence while also safeguarding the constitutional right to bear arms.
The States' Rights: The 10th Amendment Explained
You may want to see also
The Amendment has been criticised for infringing on the Second Amendment
The Lautenberg Amendment, also known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, has been criticised for infringing on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment has been deemed a fundamental right by the Supreme Court, and it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
The Lautenberg Amendment, enacted in 1996, bans access to firearms for life by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence, including misdemeanours. This includes the shipping, transportation, possession, or receipt of firearms or ammunition. The Amendment was proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and signed into law by President Bill Clinton as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.
Critics argue that the Lautenberg Amendment infringes on the Second Amendment by depriving certain individuals of their right to bear arms. In the case of United States v. Emerson (2002), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenged the Constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), which prohibits those who have used or attempted to use physical force against an intimate partner or child from transporting firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce. The Court ultimately decided that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear arms for everyone and, therefore, it is not unconstitutional to deprive certain individuals of that right.
However, some argue that the Lautenberg Amendment's reach is too broad and can impact individuals who have committed minor offences, such as a reckless misdemeanour, that are not inherently violent. In the case of Voisine v. United States (2016), the Supreme Court extended the Amendment to include reckless misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence. As a result, individuals can now be stripped of their constitutional right to bear arms based on a minor conviction that may only be punishable by a fine. This has led to concerns that the Amendment has entered "unconstitutional territory".
The First Amendment: Constitutional Amendments' First Attempt
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Lautenberg Amendment, or the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, is an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition.
The Lautenberg Amendment has been deemed constitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States vs Chovan (2013). The court ruled that the amendment does not violate an individual's civil rights as it does not take away the right to vote or serve on a jury. However, some argue that the amendment is unconstitutional as it can result in individuals being stripped of their Second Amendment right to bear arms due to minor offences.
Violating the Lautenberg Amendment can result in a felony charge and a lifetime ban on firearm possession. The amendment can also impact an individual's job and career, especially for members of the military or police force who are no longer exempt from the ban.
