Free Consultation

Does Mcdonald V. City of Chicago Threaten the Lautenberg Amendment?

Adam Walsh Act
The biggest Second Amendment decision to come down from the U.S. Supreme Court in decades is no doubt McDonald v. The City of Chicago, 560 U.S.____(2010). Your Second Amendment right is your right to bear arms. For years, no one really knew the parameters of the Second Amendment. It’s a great decision and finally and clearly tells us that we have the absolute right to defend ourselves and that includes our right to possess handguns in our homes for self-defense. This right is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment down to the states thanks to the McDonald decision. Of course, there are exceptions, and the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald reiterated that it had no problems with the existing laws prohibiting felons and mentally ill people from possessing firearms. But curiously, the Court, just as it did in Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. _____(2008), did not say anything about the federal government’s right to restrict persons from possessing firearms who have been convicted of domestic violence. Why not, I ask? It would be so simple for the Court, in dicta, to add language about whether or not the federal government or the states can restrict persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms. And that’s what the Lautenberg Amendment is all about. It’s also known as the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. It makes it a federal crime to possess a firearm where a defendant who has previously been convicted of domestic violence is caught possessing a firearm. In other words, the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban subjects a defendant to federal prison time if the defendant is caught with a firearm in his or her own home — even if that gun is intended to be used only for self-defense. Now, I’m not in any way downplaying the seriousness of domestic violence in our country or in any way be suggesting that people convicted of domestic violence should be going out and buying guns. My point raises the question of why the U.S. Supreme Court is purposefully leaving the following question open: Is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun ban unconstitutional in light of McDonald v. City of Chicago? This issue I predict will be hotly litigated and eventually have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. I’ll continue to track how lower courts are ruling on this issue and keep you posted.
Related Posts
  • Can Casino Marker Debt be Discharged in Bankruptcy in Nevada? Read More
  • If You're Faced With a Felony, What Should You Do? Read More
  • White Collar Crimes: Understanding the Charges & Penalties Read More