Here’s the Background Story:
Domestic abuse is a crime that’s often overlooked and underplayed. It certainly warrants punishment, but should that punishment include constitutional rights? Should a person’s gun rights be revoked for life if they’re convicted of domestic battery?
Here Are the Contributing Factors:
Some law experts argue for a sort of hierarchy of domestic violence crimes. They believe not all domestic violence is the same, and that there’s granularity for it as well. Their view is that only intentional acts of violence should warrant revocation of federal gun rights. The interpretation of the word “reckless” in a legal sense is the key to making their argument.
It goes something like this: Individuals who are reckless, behave impulsively and don’t consciously intend to harm the victim. This “reckless” type of domestic violence is the sort that apparently shouldn’t result in losing access to guns. Then, it’s up to the defending side to somehow prove they were behaving recklessly.
The Lautenberg Amendment, passed in 1968, made it so those charged with a domestic violence felony had their gun rights revoked. Then, Congress passed an amendment to the act in 1996 that included domestic violence misdemeanors — to catch offenders who were falling through the cracks. The punishment for breaking this law is 10 years in prison.
What’s the real legal justification for trying to allow one to keep their gun rights with a misdemeanor? Criminal law must be written with extreme specificity to avoid unfair prosecutions. However, the legal language in the Lautenberg Amendment might be constitutionally vague according to the Supreme Court. Their interpretation is that those who lost their gun rights due to a domestic violence misdemeanor should maintain their right to bear arms. The exception to this interpretation occurs when the word “reckless” is defined in sufficient clarity at the state level.
This Is What Other People Think:
Poll: Is Domestic Battery Enough Reason for a Lifetime Gun Ban?
36% Voted Yes
64% Voted No
What Do You Think?
Do you think all of this legal talk is side-stepping and impractical nonsense? Or, do you believe our federal rights are fundamental enough to warrant this nuanced debate? Vote on this heated topic, and we’ll let you know what Americans think about this as soon as we can.