Shove your husband, lose your gun … for life

The U.S. Supreme Court came down with a decision in March that effectively expands the base of people prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms in this country. In a unanimous decision in the case U.S. v. Castleman, the Court ruled that the law banning possession of firearms by anyone ever convicted of any crime of violence against a spouse or significant other – often referred to as the Lautenberg law – applies not only to crimes labeled as "Domestic Violence" or to such crimes that involve what an average person would consider actual violence, but also to things like pushing, shoving, or grabbing, even when no harm was intended and no injury sustained.

Many states have intentionally drawn a distinction between minor contact among family members during an argument and violence intended to harm, intimidate, or control. Those states' common-sense approach to the matter has now been overruled by the Court, and convictions for charges like simple assault in cases like a woman slapping a cheating spouse, or a man pushing his way out the door to get away from an argument, will now include the mandatory loss of firearm rights for life – even if the incident occurred decades ago.

What the Court did not rule on is whether it is a violation of the Second Amendment to have a lifetime loss of firearm rights based on a misdemeanor crime. The Court noted that this case did not adequately address that point and that this decision does not attempt to answer that question. They said the Second Amendment question will have to be decided in some future case.

Domestic violence is a terrible thing and a complex issue. Extreme emotions can feed uncharacteristic behaviors – including violence from either direction, and also false accusations of violence or other crimes. It wasn't many years ago that a domestic violence misdemeanor was treated little different than a traffic violation. The accused, usually men, were often counseled by their attorney's to simply plead guilty, pay the minor fine and move on – regardless of their guilt or innocence. Years or even decades later, that counsel has been proven to have been flawed because Lautenberg retroactively applies to anyone ever convicted of any "crime of violence or threat of violence with a weapon" against someone within a domestic relationship, regardless of any extenuating factors or mitigating circumstances. The anti-rights crowd passed and has protected this overreaching law with accusations that opponents of the law want "guns for wife-beaters." Of course, the reality is that we want punishment to fit the crime and justice to rule.

Our legal system distinguishes between a misdemeanor and a felony based on the severity of the crime. By definition, misdemeanors are minor criminal acts that cause little harm. On the other hand, felonies are serious crimes that cause significant harm. Punishment for misdemeanors and felonies reflect this distinction. If a crime deserves felony-level consequences, then the crime should be classified as a felony. If specific acts that can be labeled as "domestic violence" do not rise to the level of felony crimes, then the consequences should not be felony consequences.

Rather than address the problem of serious domestic violence being labeled a misdemeanor in many jurisdictions, the Lautenberg law simply throws an extra consequence onto the misdemeanor – the loss of the right to arms for life. Serious domestic violence should be a felony. Minor incidents of bumping or pushing have always rightly been considered misdemeanors. There is no rational justification for those involved in such incidents being debarred of their rights. It is ridiculous that police officers, soldiers and avid hunters should lose their livelihoods and pastimes based on minor incidents – especially after decades have passed and they have proven themselves to be responsible citizens. It is equally ridiculous that such individuals should later be arrested and sentenced to extended periods in prison for innocently possessing a hunting rifle or shotgun for recreation – again, often decades after the incident.

We have tried to get Lautenberg repealed, but the charge of "guns for wife-beaters" resonates in the media. The next hope lies in one of these outrageously unjust cases eventually making its way to the Supreme Court and having the law declared unconstitutional. Labeling good people as criminals and taking away their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on minor lapses in the heat of passion serves no public safety purpose.

More on stupid gun laws

I have often highlighted the stupidity and injustice of various gun laws around the country, and a recent case in Washington, D.C., is another excellent example of a good person being caught up in a bad law.

The District of Columbia has long been home to some of the most draconian gun control laws in the country. For instance, it is illegal for anyone in the District to be in possession of any ammunition unless they also have a legally registered firearm. It is also illegal for anyone to be in possession of a magazine capable of holding over 10 rounds, whether they have a gun or ammunition or not.

An investment adviser in D.C. has just been convicted of possessing ammunition, based on a small box of muzzle-loader projectiles. Adding to the stupidity is the fact that muzzle loaders are not required to be registered in the District; so how could their projectiles be illegal? But that didn't stop the D.C. attorney general from prosecuting and getting a conviction. This is the same AG who chose not to seek prosecution of NBC talking head David Gregory who held up a 30-round magazine in a D.C. studio during an interview with NRA's Wayne LaPierre. I don't fault him for that call, but the double-standard, together with the stupid laws, is clearly a problem.

And the stupidity rolls on.

Totally inert, the type of projectiles Mark Witaschek was convicted for possessing are comprised of lead, copper and a plastic cup. There is no gun powder, no primer, no explosive. (Photo by Jeff Knox)

Media wishing to interview Jeff Knox, please contact [email protected].