General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Google "people shot this week" . [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You may have missed the Emerson case at the Supreme Court level. Lautenberg is legal. It doesn't matter if a state judge doesn't issue an order for a person to surrender their guns. If you have a DV related restraining order or misdemeanor DV conviction, you cannot possess a firearm. Period. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200$. Period, end of story.
It even applies to the Police, and the Military, EVEN in the performance of their lawful duties. Police and military are often fired/discharged for this reason.
Lautenberg was such a badass when he authored that law, it's worded so you can't even possess a gun that you purchased before the law took effect (1996) or if you had a conviction prior to 1996 WITHOUT it being thrown out as an ex post facto punishment, because as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. (US. v. Mitchell) found, it is on the CURRENT possession. Something that can be stripped without considering an ex post facto issue at all.
States don't need to ban it. The federal government already bans it, and the Lautenberg Act's teeth survived the Emerson decision
I support background checks and 'perfect' isn't a requirement, but not criminalizing me for handing a gun my father gave me, to my brother at a gravel pit is not a 'transfer' requiring a background check.