Domestic violence gun law can affect soldiers careers

Drizzt · December 2, 2002, 08:36 PM

Domestic violence gun law can affect soldiers careers

by Spc. Daniel W. Bailey and Cpl. Kyle J. Cosner
Army News Service

A 1996 federal law can jeopardize a soldier's career and inhibit him from fighting in the War on Terrorism if he is convicted of a domestic-violence offense.

Because of an unprecedented number of domestic violence-related homicides at Fort Bragg, N.C., this summer, the Lautenberg Amendment, a law preventing domestic offenders from owning or possessing firearms, has become more of an issue affecting soldiers than ever before, an Army attorney said.

The amendment made it a felony in September 1996 for individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. Government agencies, including the Department of the Army, are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment, said Capt. Heather Fagan, an attorney with the XVIII Airborne Corps Staff Judge Advocate's Office.

The Department of Defense issued interim guidance Oct. 22, 1997, which outlined steps to ensure DoD personnel do not issue government and privately owned firearms or ammunition to persons whom they know or have reasonable cause to believe have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.

The policy covers all soldiers -- active, Reserve, and National Guard -- but will affect "a very small percentage" of the total Army, said Maj. Doug Carr, a staff officer within the Pentagon's Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1.

"All soldiers having qualifying misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence under the Lautenberg Amendment aren't allowed to possess or handle firearms or ammunition, so this affects them in their capacity within the military to handle a weapon," Carr said.

In fact, the interim Army guidance, put out Jan. 15, 1998, prescribed that commanders would identify these soldiers, Carr said, to ensure they did not have possession of privately owned firearms and ammunition or have access to any firearms and ammunition.

"That meant they could not qualify at a [military firing] range, and had to be assigned to positions which did not allow them to have access to a weapon."

To date, said Carr, the Army has been in compliance with the Lautenberg Amendment. However, he said, with the greatest impacts of the law affecting personnel reassignments and re-enlistments, the Army determined it was necessary to specifically address Lautenberg Amendment-related personnel issues.

Army guidance on deployment eligibility, assignment and reporting of soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment state "a soldier is non-deployable for missions that require firearms and ammunition, and should be assigned, if feasible, to non-tactical units," Fagan said.

However, Fagan said, all soldiers, regardless of the type of assignment, are required to undergo periodic weapons qualification. All soldiers could also be required to take up arms in time of war.

"The implication is soldiers with records of domestic violence who cannot qualify at military shooting ranges cannot be promoted," said Fagan. Nor could such soldiers handle firearms in wartime, she said.

Those enlisted soldiers who have been convicted of domestic violence will be barred from re-enlistment, said Fagan, but will be provided a chance to clear the record.

"They are not allowed to re-enlist, but they may be allowed to extend for one year," she said. "This is to give them the opportunity to get any domestic violence convictions expunged from the record."

A number of options are available to soldiers affected by Lautenberg Amendment penalties who are trying to restore their ability to handle firearms, said Lt. Col. Kevin H. Govern, deputy staff judge advocate at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg.

"In addition to expungement, if the offender has been pardoned or had his civil rights restored, then a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction will not then be considered a conviction under federal law to prohibit the possession of firearms and ammunition," Govern said.

The most direct approach to reinstate a soldier's eligibility ... under federal law, following a state misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, is to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation by petitioning a state Superior Court or equivalent, Govern added.

"If they're unable to do this, the year gives them a little time to prepare for transition out of the military," Fagan added.

Fagan stressed the amendment's policies also apply to Army officers.

"Officers would also be non-deployable for missions, since they would be prohibited from having access to firearms or ammunition," she said.

Both officers and enlisted soldiers affected by the new policy will be eligible to apply for a discharge from the Army, Carr said.

Under existing policy, Carr said civilians with court convictions of domestic violence are not eligible to join the Army, whether in an enlisted or officer capacity.

If there is reason to believe a particular soldier may be in violation of the amendment's policies, Govern said that in all cases the unit's commander should consult the Staff Judge Advocate's trial counsel to ensure that the law applies to a soldier before action is taken in compliance with the law.

(Bailey is assigned to the Fort Bragg Paraglide newspaper and Cosner is assigned to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command Public Affairs Office.)

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/penta...s/20471-1.html

Oleg Volk · December 2, 2002, 08:58 PM

I am beginning to wonder if the next draft will be dodged with assertions of homosexuality or of domestic abuse history...either of which would make a person ineligible for the privilege of dying or getting maimed in a war.

Betty · December 2, 2002, 09:36 PM

So soldiers convicted of domestic violence may not be able to handle a weapon anymore, but convicted cops can.

At my favorite pawn shop, the owner, a friend of mine, said two local cops were just turned down for new firearms purchases (after I was nosy about some TICS stubs I saw) because of domestic violence convictions. They can still carry their duty weapons.

Like laws cover everyone consistently.

**4V50 Gary** · December 2, 2002, 10:24 PM

Clinton laws for Klintonites. The rest of us can have normal laws.

Monkeyleg · December 2, 2002, 11:59 PM

Runt, the Lautenberg amendment applies to LEO's as well. That's why the Fraternal Order of Police (whose high-ranking members stood behind Clinton during the signing of the AW ban in '94) went bonkers in '96 over the passage of the Lautenberg amendment.

Lots of deparments had to reshuffle personnel.

And, considering that just yelling at your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/S.O. can get you arrested for domestic violence, Lautenberg really scored a coup. He managed to strip away the 2nd Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of people whose only guilt was having a loud mouth or a hot temper. And Lautenberg never even had to address the Constitution to do it.

Thanks to all the non-gun-owners in NJ for electing this traitor to yet another term.

Oh, and Oleg: if you and Runt ever have a misunderstanding, be very, very quiet about it.

**LawDog** · December 3, 2002, 12:18 AM

Um, that's a negative, Runt.

We lost a good officer when the Lautenberg Amendment passed. He and his new wife had an argument one evening, and wound up having a big row in their front yard. Sometime during the row, he picked her up, put her in their car and told her to go to her mamas' house until she got her head together, she hauled off and slapped him, it wasn't very pretty, but neither one of them was really out to hurt the other.

Cops showed up because of all the yelling and screaming, she demanded that they do something, so they wrote the both of them tickets for Assault by Contact.

Fifty bucks and don't do it again.

Twenty years later, they're still together, and they must have sorted things out because they've got about five kids running around, but the Sheriff had to fire him because he has a domestic violence conviction.

Lautenberg is a BS law. It's ex post facto, which is clearly a violation of the Constitution, and it imposes felony penalties for misdemeanor offenses.

LawDog

Langenator · December 3, 2002, 12:37 AM

The worst part about Lautenberg is that in cases of "He Said, She Said" the jury will almost always side with the woman (sorry if that's sexist, but it's also true). My unit almost lost a Sergeant First Class, Ranger and SF-tabbed, something like 16-17 years of service, because he had a vicious, nasty ex-wife who screwed him big time right before the divorce. Luckily, Washington law allows for rehabilitation on this issue, and he had a very good lawyer and our chain of command was committed to fully supporting him (having the row behind his seat filled with soldiers in dress uniforms, led by the battalion commander and command sergeant major, makes a hell of an impression.)

This fine NCO will be with us when we go to war next year.

Coronach · December 3, 2002, 01:22 AM

Quote:

So soldiers convicted of domestic violence may not be able to handle a weapon anymore, but convicted cops can.

Uhm...no. This would be yet another of those Gunowner Urban Legends. Cops are not exempt from this stupid, utterly unconstitutional law.

Quote:

At my favorite pawn shop, the owner, a friend of mine, said two local cops were just turned down for new firearms purchases (after I was nosy about some TICS stubs I saw) because of domestic violence convictions. They can still carry their duty weapons.

Like laws cover everyone consistently

Methinks your pawnshop owner friend is either 1. mistaken or 2. full of it or 3. someone down at the PD isn't doing what they're required to do. And before anyone says "oh I bet #3 is widespread" uhm...no, its not. Seen a couple of cops lose their badges over this, a few deserved, a few not.

Mike

Coronach · December 3, 2002, 01:31 AM

Quote:

The worst part about Lautenberg is that in cases of "He Said, She Said" the jury will almost always side with the woman (sorry if that's sexist, but it's also true).

Ehh...weak-sister cases like that usually won't go to trial, and if they do, well...there's a problem with jury instructions if they're convicting on a coin toss.

The REAL problem is, as LawDog said, for all of the people who got gigged for DV years ago, decided that it was easiest to plead out than to fight it, only to find that some legislator decided to add some ex post facto punishment to his or her crime.

Stupidity, 100% pure stupid.

I'm no fan of wife beaters (the men, not the shirts), but I'm less of a fan of constitutional shenanigans. I've also seen more than one case of "woman scorned" where some pretty interesting allegations were made that had no basis in reality. It would really really stink to be some guy in 1995, who just wants to be done with it, plead out to the DV, pay the $1000 fine and get the year probation...knowing that he's money ahead for the lawyers and that he'll keep his nose clean for 365 days and its over....oops.

Mike

Double Naught Spy · December 3, 2002, 02:07 AM

You gotta love the military. They try to teach soldiers to be aggressive warriors and then don't have a way of teaching them to be less aggressive for domestic situations or after they get out of the military and become civilians again.

Granted, some of the spouse beaters in the military would have done it even if they had not been in the military, but some probably would not have.

Corkscrew · December 3, 2002, 02:41 AM

Hey all,

This is NOT a friendly subject to discuss. Oh well.

WE NEED our military members to be the most bad-assed on the planet.

If our guys get a bit of that neanderthal instinct to mate, they should not be punished so severely by the state if they attempt to pick out a lifelong mate that isn't as strong as they used to be.

There are TWO sides to every fight.

I haven't seen a gal that was as strong willed as my grandmother. And she never started a physical fight that I know of ( not that the words she spoke in disagreement weren't sharp) with her spouse, a real born in a log cabin American.

Yet, I have seen many instances of city born folks where when it takes two to tango, the guy gets the hammer.

To have the state put down the hammer, in situations where it took two to tango, on the male parties that make up our nations bad-assed troups we NEED, is a disgrace.

String up a rope for those guys that have no idea how not to start nor where to stop. We are a country with morals. (At least I hope we still are.)

Maybe I have written clear enough to make it plain that I highly despise spousal abuse, but have the opinion that in far to many cases, the state favors one sex over the other; and am forced to conclude that the current punishment may be excessive when the Federal Government made a bad-asssed soldier out of one of the spouses. ... Maybe someone made a mistake somewhere?

KSFreeman · December 3, 2002, 07:02 AM

runt, yes, the FEDERAL law applies to those po-po. If you know who they are and they are carrying guns, the United States Attorney awaits.

This law is silly, but it is wonderful watching the po-po/militree squirm under it! Now if we can just apply ALL gun laws to the po-po and militree. No more serfs and knights.

If that happened, wonder how long until all the silly gun laws would be abolished.

Hkmp5sd · December 3, 2002, 07:32 AM

I still don't understand the theory behind this law. Anyone that wants to kill their spouse, whether or not there is a restraining order or domestic violence conviction, can aquire a gun quite easily. OJ didn't even bother to get a gun.

I really like the convoluted way they get around making the law retroactive:

Quote:

(Q3) Question: Does application of the law to persons convicted prior to the law's effective date violate constitutional rights?

Answer: No. This provision is not being applied retroactively or in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. This is because the law does not impose additional punishment upon persons convicted prior to the effective date, but merely regulates the future possession of firearms on or after the effective date. The provision is not retroactive merely because the person's conviction occurred prior to the effective date. [18 U. S. C. 922( g)( 9), 27 CFR 178.32( a)( 9)]

Being banned from owning guns FOR LIFE is not an additional punishment.

BigG · December 3, 2002, 08:54 AM

If any of y'all get served with some paper related to this, get a lawyer and pay him whatever it takes (about $500 - $1000) to get this charge dismissed.

I had my wife try to get me for spouse abuse (not guilty) because she wrongly thought she needed some grounds for divorce. Luckily all the evidence was against her but the civil authorities decided to press charges on the state's behalf, taking it out of her hands. Look for some Office of Victim Assistance or Women's Issues or the like in your local gomt, I bet there's one with a federally funded counselor just itching to file some paperwork on one of us big "neanderthals." (Stupid federal grants, another waste of your tax dollars). I immediately got the best lawyer in town to go to bat and he came thru 100%. But I didn't take it lightly and I sure WAS NOT going to plead. I demanded a jury trial.

Betty · December 3, 2002, 10:41 AM

The reason why I asked my friend what was up with the officer turned down was because I recognized the name on the TICS stub as a man being a local cop. A cop is a representative of the law, so naturally I'm curious as to why he was turned down. I was nosy and I found out why (it was worded "he hit his wife" or something like that) and then I found out another officer had been turned down around the same time (reasons unknown).

Whatever reasons these officers were turned down through TICS,whether domestic violence or not,technically that means they can't have a gun period, right? (Doesn't mean I agree with that law - I don't.)

I don't have an explanation as to why this officer is still a cop after the law says he's not supposed to. Maybe he's a really bad dude and beats up on women all the time, maybe he's the victim of a sniveling vengeful woman.

But I do know a few things about the town these cops are in, and how things are run. I'm not saying cops are getting "special treatment" everywhere, but I am saying things do work differently in this particular "small southern town". I hate to use that stereotype, but it's so stinking evident in all aspects of that town that I'm happy I left it for the city. Crud, I know the judge used his "leverage" at least once to "help out" his girlfriend (not to mention the stunt he tried to pull on my dad), and don't even get me started on the last judge.

The town's a big bucket of slimy worms revolving on who-knows-who, who's buddy with who, and who's daddy is so-and-so.

Whether this cop is still a cop because of the "bubba system" working the wrong way in protecting a violent man, or the system working the right way in protecting a wrongly accused man from a stupid law is unknown to me. I do know that I haven't heard of this officer beating up on any other woman.

Betty · December 3, 2002, 10:48 AM

Quote:

(Monkeyleg) Oh, and Oleg: if you and Runt ever have a misunderstanding, be very, very quiet about it.

Our arguments tend to go like this: If you don't agree with me, I'll tickle your belly until your stomach explodes!

KSFreeman · December 3, 2002, 12:30 PM

runt, it depends. It may be that they are initially unable to ascertain the disposition of the case--nolled, acquited, withhold prosecution, withhold judgment, guilty, pending an appeal or PCR, etc. Just because they were turned down, does not mean they were convicted, i.e. false positive.

**Johnny Guest** · December 3, 2002, 05:33 PM

We have one good deputy who got into a shouting match with his (now ex-) wife several years ago. She struck at him with a lamp. He took it away from her, just as her relative arrived. She said, "Ouch, that hurt!" or something of the sort. Her sister (?? cousin? Neice?) called police and told the officer she WITNESSED an assault. No marks. The officer wrote a summons. Guy posts a $25 bond and sets it for court. Missed his court date and went to re-set it, but thought, "what the heck--Class C misdemeanor. Not worth the trouble."

The same guy later applied for a police job. Put this rap on his application. The background investigator couldn't even locate the "victim" or the "witness." The guy was hired anyway. Made a good cop, and later came to the Sheriff's Office. The Lautenberg thing came down. The sheriff was sympathetic, but had to transfer the deputy to a positon which didn't require him to go armed. A very good investigator, but he can't work the streets or serve warrants. Sad.

Best,
Johnny

legalhack · December 4, 2002, 03:03 AM

Couple of points:

One must have a lautenburg "QUALIFYING" "CONVICTION"- Two requirements. Some loopholes that are available - but also opens the door to those in a family-like situation.

You can have a FELONY on your records and this will not fall under LAUTENBURG. (Some other aspects, but not lautenburg)

It is a crime to provide the weapon to one who has a lautenburg qualifying conviction.

Frank Lautenberg should die in a fiery car crash......

December 2, 2002, 08:36 PM	#1
Drizzt Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2000 Location: Going Out of My Head at a Rapid Pace..... Posts: 2,511	Domestic violence gun law can affect soldiers careers Domestic violence gun law can affect soldiers careers by Spc. Daniel W. Bailey and Cpl. Kyle J. Cosner Army News Service A 1996 federal law can jeopardize a soldier's career and inhibit him from fighting in the War on Terrorism if he is convicted of a domestic-violence offense. Because of an unprecedented number of domestic violence-related homicides at Fort Bragg, N.C., this summer, the Lautenberg Amendment, a law preventing domestic offenders from owning or possessing firearms, has become more of an issue affecting soldiers than ever before, an Army attorney said. The amendment made it a felony in September 1996 for individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition. Government agencies, including the Department of the Army, are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment, said Capt. Heather Fagan, an attorney with the XVIII Airborne Corps Staff Judge Advocate's Office. The Department of Defense issued interim guidance Oct. 22, 1997, which outlined steps to ensure DoD personnel do not issue government and privately owned firearms or ammunition to persons whom they know or have reasonable cause to believe have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. The policy covers all soldiers -- active, Reserve, and National Guard -- but will affect "a very small percentage" of the total Army, said Maj. Doug Carr, a staff officer within the Pentagon's Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1. "All soldiers having qualifying misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence under the Lautenberg Amendment aren't allowed to possess or handle firearms or ammunition, so this affects them in their capacity within the military to handle a weapon," Carr said. In fact, the interim Army guidance, put out Jan. 15, 1998, prescribed that commanders would identify these soldiers, Carr said, to ensure they did not have possession of privately owned firearms and ammunition or have access to any firearms and ammunition. "That meant they could not qualify at a [military firing] range, and had to be assigned to positions which did not allow them to have access to a weapon." To date, said Carr, the Army has been in compliance with the Lautenberg Amendment. However, he said, with the greatest impacts of the law affecting personnel reassignments and re-enlistments, the Army determined it was necessary to specifically address Lautenberg Amendment-related personnel issues. Army guidance on deployment eligibility, assignment and reporting of soldiers affected by the Lautenberg Amendment state "a soldier is non-deployable for missions that require firearms and ammunition, and should be assigned, if feasible, to non-tactical units," Fagan said. However, Fagan said, all soldiers, regardless of the type of assignment, are required to undergo periodic weapons qualification. All soldiers could also be required to take up arms in time of war. "The implication is soldiers with records of domestic violence who cannot qualify at military shooting ranges cannot be promoted," said Fagan. Nor could such soldiers handle firearms in wartime, she said. Those enlisted soldiers who have been convicted of domestic violence will be barred from re-enlistment, said Fagan, but will be provided a chance to clear the record. "They are not allowed to re-enlist, but they may be allowed to extend for one year," she said. "This is to give them the opportunity to get any domestic violence convictions expunged from the record." A number of options are available to soldiers affected by Lautenberg Amendment penalties who are trying to restore their ability to handle firearms, said Lt. Col. Kevin H. Govern, deputy staff judge advocate at the U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. "In addition to expungement, if the offender has been pardoned or had his civil rights restored, then a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction will not then be considered a conviction under federal law to prohibit the possession of firearms and ammunition," Govern said. The most direct approach to reinstate a soldier's eligibility ... under federal law, following a state misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, is to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation by petitioning a state Superior Court or equivalent, Govern added. "If they're unable to do this, the year gives them a little time to prepare for transition out of the military," Fagan added. Fagan stressed the amendment's policies also apply to Army officers. "Officers would also be non-deployable for missions, since they would be prohibited from having access to firearms or ammunition," she said. Both officers and enlisted soldiers affected by the new policy will be eligible to apply for a discharge from the Army, Carr said. Under existing policy, Carr said civilians with court convictions of domestic violence are not eligible to join the Army, whether in an enlisted or officer capacity. If there is reason to believe a particular soldier may be in violation of the amendment's policies, Govern said that in all cases the unit's commander should consult the Staff Judge Advocate's trial counsel to ensure that the law applies to a soldier before action is taken in compliance with the law. (Bailey is assigned to the Fort Bragg Paraglide newspaper and Cosner is assigned to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command Public Affairs Office.) http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/penta...s/20471-1.html __________________ "That a free citizen should have to go before a committee, hat in hand, and pray for permission to bear arms - fantastic! Arm your daughter, sir, and pay no attention to petty bureaucrats." Robert Heinlein - Red Planet

December 2, 2002, 08:58 PM	#2
Oleg Volk Staff Alumnus Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 7,031	I am beginning to wonder if the next draft will be dodged with assertions of homosexuality or of domestic abuse history...either of which would make a person ineligible for the privilege of dying or getting maimed in a war. __________________ Oleg "peacemonger" Volk Human Life is Worth Defending.

December 2, 2002, 10:24 PM	#4
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: California Posts: 13,263	Clinton laws for Klintonites. The rest of us can have normal laws. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

December 2, 2002, 11:59 PM	#5
Monkeyleg Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2000 Posts: 4,621	Runt, the Lautenberg amendment applies to LEO's as well. That's why the Fraternal Order of Police (whose high-ranking members stood behind Clinton during the signing of the AW ban in '94) went bonkers in '96 over the passage of the Lautenberg amendment. Lots of deparments had to reshuffle personnel. And, considering that just yelling at your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/S.O. can get you arrested for domestic violence, Lautenberg really scored a coup. He managed to strip away the 2nd Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of people whose only guilt was having a loud mouth or a hot temper. And Lautenberg never even had to address the Constitution to do it. Thanks to all the non-gun-owners in NJ for electing this traitor to yet another term. Oh, and Oleg: if you and Runt ever have a misunderstanding, be very, very quiet about it. __________________ Eotech Sights, Hunting Rangefinders Crimson Trace, Bushnell Scopes Remington Rifles, Smith and Wesson revolvers Beretta Pistols, Kimber, ACOG sights

December 3, 2002, 12:18 AM	#6
LawDog Staff Join Date: September 15, 1999 Location: Where am I going? Why am I in this handbasket? Posts: 4,205	Um, that's a negative, Runt. We lost a good officer when the Lautenberg Amendment passed. He and his new wife had an argument one evening, and wound up having a big row in their front yard. Sometime during the row, he picked her up, put her in their car and told her to go to her mamas' house until she got her head together, she hauled off and slapped him, it wasn't very pretty, but neither one of them was really out to hurt the other. Cops showed up because of all the yelling and screaming, she demanded that they do something, so they wrote the both of them tickets for Assault by Contact. Fifty bucks and don't do it again. Twenty years later, they're still together, and they must have sorted things out because they've got about five kids running around, but the Sheriff had to fire him because he has a domestic violence conviction. Lautenberg is a BS law. It's ex post facto, which is clearly a violation of the Constitution, and it imposes felony penalties for misdemeanor offenses. LawDog __________________ "The Father wove the skein of your life a long time ago. Go and hide in a hole if you wish, but you won't live one instant longer." --The 13th Warrior Bona na Croin The LawDog Files

December 2, 2002, 09:36 PM	#3
Betty Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2000 Location: southern U.S. Posts: 1,774	So soldiers convicted of domestic violence may not be able to handle a weapon anymore, but convicted cops can. At my favorite pawn shop, the owner, a friend of mine, said two local cops were just turned down for new firearms purchases (after I was nosy about some TICS stubs I saw) because of domestic violence convictions. They can still carry their duty weapons. Like laws cover everyone consistently.

December 3, 2002, 12:37 AM	#7
Langenator Member Join Date: July 19, 2002 Location: WA Posts: 75	The worst part about Lautenberg is that in cases of "He Said, She Said" the jury will almost always side with the woman (sorry if that's sexist, but it's also true). My unit almost lost a Sergeant First Class, Ranger and SF-tabbed, something like 16-17 years of service, because he had a vicious, nasty ex-wife who screwed him big time right before the divorce. Luckily, Washington law allows for rehabilitation on this issue, and he had a very good lawyer and our chain of command was committed to fully supporting him (having the row behind his seat filled with soldiers in dress uniforms, led by the battalion commander and command sergeant major, makes a hell of an impression.) This fine NCO will be with us when we go to war next year. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis Happiness is a belt fed weapon. -unknown

December 3, 2002, 02:07 AM	#10
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Posts: 6,045	You gotta love the military. They try to teach soldiers to be aggressive warriors and then don't have a way of teaching them to be less aggressive for domestic situations or after they get out of the military and become civilians again. Granted, some of the spouse beaters in the military would have done it even if they had not been in the military, but some probably would not have. __________________ Lt. Cmdr. Matt T. Sherman: Where is Lt. Holden? Lt. Watson: When the air raid started they took off. All he said was "in confusion there is profit."

December 3, 2002, 02:41 AM	#11
Corkscrew Member Join Date: May 13, 2002 Posts: 18	Tone it down? Hey all, This is NOT a friendly subject to discuss. Oh well. WE NEED our military members to be the most bad-assed on the planet. If our guys get a bit of that neanderthal instinct to mate, they should not be punished so severely by the state if they attempt to pick out a lifelong mate that isn't as strong as they used to be. There are TWO sides to every fight. I haven't seen a gal that was as strong willed as my grandmother. And she never started a physical fight that I know of ( not that the words she spoke in disagreement weren't sharp) with her spouse, a real born in a log cabin American. Yet, I have seen many instances of city born folks where when it takes two to tango, the guy gets the hammer. To have the state put down the hammer, in situations where it took two to tango, on the male parties that make up our nations bad-assed troups we NEED, is a disgrace. String up a rope for those guys that have no idea how not to start nor where to stop. We are a country with morals. (At least I hope we still are.) Maybe I have written clear enough to make it plain that I highly despise spousal abuse, but have the opinion that in far to many cases, the state favors one sex over the other; and am forced to conclude that the current punishment may be excessive when the Federal Government made a bad-asssed soldier out of one of the spouses. ... Maybe someone made a mistake somewhere?

December 3, 2002, 07:02 AM	#12
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,404	runt, yes, the FEDERAL law applies to those po-po. If you know who they are and they are carrying guns, the United States Attorney awaits. This law is silly, but it is wonderful watching the po-po/militree squirm under it! Now if we can just apply ALL gun laws to the po-po and militree. No more serfs and knights. If that happened, wonder how long until all the silly gun laws would be abolished. __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

December 3, 2002, 08:54 AM	#14
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,255	If any of y'all get served with some paper related to this, get a lawyer and pay him whatever it takes (about $500 - $1000) to get this charge dismissed. I had my wife try to get me for spouse abuse (not guilty) because she wrongly thought she needed some grounds for divorce. Luckily all the evidence was against her but the civil authorities decided to press charges on the state's behalf, taking it out of her hands. Look for some Office of Victim Assistance or Women's Issues or the like in your local gomt, I bet there's one with a federally funded counselor just itching to file some paperwork on one of us big "neanderthals." (Stupid federal grants, another waste of your tax dollars). I immediately got the best lawyer in town to go to bat and he came thru 100%. But I didn't take it lightly and I sure WAS NOT going to plead. I demanded a jury trial. __________________ o "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC o "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain o "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" Paul Harvey o TODAY WE CARVE OUT OUR OWN OMENS! Leonidas, Thermopylae, 480 BC

December 3, 2002, 10:41 AM	#15
Betty Senior Member Join Date: March 22, 2000 Location: southern U.S. Posts: 1,774	The reason why I asked my friend what was up with the officer turned down was because I recognized the name on the TICS stub as a man being a local cop. A cop is a representative of the law, so naturally I'm curious as to why he was turned down. I was nosy and I found out why (it was worded "he hit his wife" or something like that) and then I found out another officer had been turned down around the same time (reasons unknown). Whatever reasons these officers were turned down through TICS,whether domestic violence or not,technically that means they can't have a gun period, right? (Doesn't mean I agree with that law - I don't.) I don't have an explanation as to why this officer is still a cop after the law says he's not supposed to. Maybe he's a really bad dude and beats up on women all the time, maybe he's the victim of a sniveling vengeful woman. But I do know a few things about the town these cops are in, and how things are run. I'm not saying cops are getting "special treatment" everywhere, but I am saying things do work differently in this particular "small southern town". I hate to use that stereotype, but it's so stinking evident in all aspects of that town that I'm happy I left it for the city. Crud, I know the judge used his "leverage" at least once to "help out" his girlfriend (not to mention the stunt he tried to pull on my dad), and don't even get me started on the last judge. The town's a big bucket of slimy worms revolving on who-knows-who, who's buddy with who, and who's daddy is so-and-so. Whether this cop is still a cop because of the "bubba system" working the wrong way in protecting a violent man, or the system working the right way in protecting a wrongly accused man from a stupid law is unknown to me. I do know that I haven't heard of this officer beating up on any other woman.

December 3, 2002, 12:30 PM	#17
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,404	runt, it depends. It may be that they are initially unable to ascertain the disposition of the case--nolled, acquited, withhold prosecution, withhold judgment, guilty, pending an appeal or PCR, etc. Just because they were turned down, does not mean they were convicted, i.e. false positive. __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

December 3, 2002, 05:33 PM	#18
Johnny Guest Staff Join Date: August 28, 1999 Location: North Texas Posts: 3,979	There are hundreds, probably thousands of instances, like - - - We have one good deputy who got into a shouting match with his (now ex-) wife several years ago. She struck at him with a lamp. He took it away from her, just as her relative arrived. She said, "Ouch, that hurt!" or something of the sort. Her sister (?? cousin? Neice?) called police and told the officer she WITNESSED an assault. No marks. The officer wrote a summons. Guy posts a $25 bond and sets it for court. Missed his court date and went to re-set it, but thought, "what the heck--Class C misdemeanor. Not worth the trouble." The same guy later applied for a police job. Put this rap on his application. The background investigator couldn't even locate the "victim" or the "witness." The guy was hired anyway. Made a good cop, and later came to the Sheriff's Office. The Lautenberg thing came down. The sheriff was sympathetic, but had to transfer the deputy to a positon which didn't require him to go armed. A very good investigator, but he can't work the streets or serve warrants. Sad. Best, Johnny __________________ MOLON LABE! Amendment II ensures the rest of the Bill of Rights. Blog: Expert Witness

December 4, 2002, 03:03 AM	#19
legalhack Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 2000 Location: Bragg Posts: 242	Couple of points: One must have a lautenburg "QUALIFYING" "CONVICTION"- Two requirements. Some loopholes that are available - but also opens the door to those in a family-like situation. You can have a FELONY on your records and this will not fall under LAUTENBURG. (Some other aspects, but not lautenburg) It is a crime to provide the weapon to one who has a lautenburg qualifying conviction. Frank Lautenberg should die in a fiery car crash......