Re ban on gun ownership if you have a domestic violence conviction

[astro]

Re this story here - Court upholds federal gun ban against domestic violence offenders

If you have a large gun collection and are convicted of DV what happens? Are you suddenly illegal and the guns are confiscated ? Do you have some time to get rid of the guns and sell them or do you have to make preparations beforehand?

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bars people with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions from owning guns.

The justices rejected arguments that the law covers only intentional or knowing acts of abuse and not those committed recklessly — where a person is aware of the risk that an act will cause injury, but not certain it will. As examples, the court mentioned throwing a plate in the heat of an argument, or slamming a door.

[Procrustus]

@astro

Re this story here - Court upholds federal gun ban against domestic violence offenders

If you have a large gun collection and are convicted of DV what happens? Are you suddenly illegal and the guns are confiscated ? Do you have some time to get rid of the guns and sell them or do you have to make preparations beforehand?

My clients were told, upon conviction, they they had to get rid of their guns. They were not confiscated. To be safe, (and if you hadn’t planned ahead) I suppose you could have someone else go to your house and get them out of there before you got home from court.

[Northern_Piper]

Is this the “Thomas Speaks!” case?

[Oddball_92]

So would this be retroactive? Might be a lot of guns suddenly for sale.

[Loach]

@Procrustus

My clients were told, upon conviction, they they had to get rid of their guns. They were not confiscated. To be safe, (and if you hadn’t planned ahead) I suppose you could have someone else go to your house and get them out of there before you got home from court.

If there is a restraining order we go and seize the guns. The restraining order itself acts as a search warrant. After they are seized they are transferred to our county sheriff where the final disposition is determined after the court proceedings.

[Loach]

@Oddball_92

So would this be retroactive? Might be a lot of guns suddenly for sale.

Not sure what you mean. The law has been on the books since 1997.

[Frank]

@Loach

If there is a restraining order we go and seize the guns. The restraining order itself acts as a search warrant. After they are seized they are transferred to our county sheriff where the final disposition is determined after the court proceedings.

Can the owner sell them, or otherwise transfer ownership? Or has ownership effectively passed to the police? (Question meant more for after a conviction than during the process.)

[muldoonthief]

“Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Thomas’ dissent in part”

That’s a sentence I wasn’t ever expecting to read.

[RivkahChaya]

@muldoonthief

“Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Thomas’ dissent in part”

That’s a sentence I wasn’t ever expecting to read.

Yeah. Wow.

[Loach]

@Frank

Can the owner sell them, or otherwise transfer ownership? Or has ownership effectively passed to the police? (Question meant more for after a conviction than during the process.)

Since I’ve never been involved in that part of the process I’m not going to pass on any half misremembered information.

[muldoonthief]

I live in Massachusetts, not a state particularly friendly to gun owners, and you can have your firearms transferred from police custody to an FFL, who will either store them for you or sell them for you if necessary.

Here’s my local gun shops web page describing the process.

[Oddball_92]

@Loach

Not sure what you mean. The law has been on the books since 1997.

Apparently this is a new Supreme Court ruling. What I meant was if someone had been convicted for domestic violence say, 10, 15, 20 years ago…who have since been able to legally buy firearms…would they now have to give up their guns?

[muldoonthief]

@Oddball_92

Apparently this is a new Supreme Court ruling. What I meant was if someone had been convicted for domestic violence say, 10, 15, 20 years ago…who have since been able to legally buy firearms…would they now have to give up their guns?

But the ruling upheld the way the law has been interpreted and enforced since it was written. The petitioner was claiming he should not have had his right to own a gun permanently removed because of his conviction. The court said, no, the way the law is being enforced is correct.

Had they ruled the other way, there would be hundreds or thousands of people convicted over the past 20 years who would have their gun rights restored.

Here’s the ruling.

[UltraVires]

@muldoonthief

But the ruling upheld the way the law has been interpreted and enforced since it was written. The petitioner was claiming he should not have had his right to own a gun permanently removed because of his conviction. The court said, no, the way the law is being enforced is correct.

Had they ruled the other way, there would be hundreds or thousands of people convicted over the past 20 years who would have their gun rights restored.

Here’s the ruling.

The ruling was last summer and was not a direct challenge to the misdemeanor gun ban. The issue was the wording of one state statute which allowed a conviction for domestic violence due to “reckless” conduct instead of intentional conduct. He argued that under federal law, the conduct should have to be intentional to disqualify him.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with a challenge to the law itself.

[Loach]

@UltraVires

The ruling was last summer and was not a direct challenge to the misdemeanor gun ban. The issue was the wording of one state statute which allowed a conviction for domestic violence due to “reckless” conduct instead of intentional conduct. He argued that under federal law, the conduct should have to be intentional to disqualify him.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with a challenge to the law itself.

Yeah that is often the case. Truly groundbreaking case law is infrequent. Often it is a small constitutional issue within the context of a case. Sometimes they will expound and bring up greater constitutional issues but often it is only for a very particular set of circumstances.

[Loach]

@Oddball_92

Apparently this is a new Supreme Court ruling. What I meant was if someone had been convicted for domestic violence say, 10, 15, 20 years ago…who have since been able to legally buy firearms…would they now have to give up their guns?

The law is actually the Lautenberg Amendment. As the name states it was an amendment to a previous law which was preposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It went into effect a little before I started working but as far as I know it wasn’t retroactive. It’s been law since 1997 so it affects convictions after that.

[JRDelirious]

@Oddball_92

Apparently this is a new Supreme Court ruling. What I meant was if someone had been convicted for domestic violence say, 10, 15, 20 years ago…who have since been able to legally buy firearms…would they now have to give up their guns?

AIUI and I believe is what **Loach **is saying, as the law stood if you were convicted of the relevant offenses since 1997 you *already *had your guns taken from you.

[UltraVires]

The law is certainly retroactive. If a person has ever been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (ever!) then he may not possess firearms under federal law.

[pkbites]

@Loach

It’s been law since 1997 so it affects convictions after that.

No, there was a court decision that said if one was ever convicted of a domestic violence crime they couldn’t own/possess a firearm. It stemmed from a guy who was convicted of something way back in the 60’s I believe.

I forget what year the decision came out so it’ll be hard to look up. We were told about it in a legal update class one year during our mandatory annual in-service training.