Firearms Prohibitions and Domestic Violence Convictions (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (14 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Oct. 1, 2001 |
| Report Number |
RL31143 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
T.J. Halstead, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 establishes a comprehensive
regulatory
scheme designed to prevent the use of firearms in domestic violence offenses. To this end, the
Amendment prohibits the possession of firearms by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence, and, relatedly, prohibits the knowing sale or disposition of any firearm or
ammunition to a domestic violence misdemeanant. Furthermore, the Lautenberg Amendment alters
the traditional public interest exception to the possession of firearms under the Gun Control Act by
making the prohibition applicable to any individual convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor,
including federal, state, and local law enforcement officers.
The provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment have been challenged on three primary grounds.
First, opponents of the law maintain that it violates the Commerce Clause by classifying as a federal
offense activity that does not have an effect on interstate commerce as required by the Supreme
Court's decision in United States v. Lopez . It has also been argued that the law violates
the Equal
Protection Clause by punishing domestic violence misdemeanors more harshly than other
misdemeanor offenses, by punishing misdemeanor but not felony offenses, and by excluding law
enforcement officers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses from the public interest
exception of 18 U.S.C. Section 925(a)(1). Furthermore, the law has been attacked as a violation of
the Ex Post Facto Clause on the basis that it prohibits the possession of a firearm by a domestic
violence misdemeanant even if the predicate offense occurred prior to its enactment.
Reviewing courts have rejected these challenges to the Lautenberg Amendment, determining
that its provisions fall within acceptable constitutional parameters. Regarding the Commerce Clause,
courts have held that the law contains an express jurisdictional element requiring a finding that the
firearm in question was possessed in or affecting commerce, or was received after having been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, obviating the concerns at issue in
United
States v. Lopez . Equal Protection Clause challenges have been rejected upon the
determination that
Congress rationally concluded that misdemeanor domestic violence offenders should not possess
firearms. Finally, the courts have held that the law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause in that
it prohibits post-enactment possession and does not criminalize conduct occurring before its
enactment.
