{
  "id": "RL31143",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31143",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100970,
      "date": "2001-10-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:20:32.176941",
      "title": "Firearms Prohibitions and Domestic Violence Convictions: The Lautenberg Amendment",
      "summary": "The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 establishes a comprehensive\nregulatory\nscheme designed to prevent the use of firearms in domestic violence offenses. To this end, the\nAmendment prohibits the possession of firearms by persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of\ndomestic violence, and, relatedly, prohibits the knowing sale or disposition of any firearm or\nammunition to a domestic violence misdemeanant. Furthermore, the Lautenberg Amendment alters\nthe traditional public interest exception to the possession of firearms under the Gun Control Act by\nmaking the prohibition applicable to any individual convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor,\nincluding federal, state, and local law enforcement officers.\n  The provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment have been challenged on three primary grounds.\nFirst, opponents of the law maintain that it violates the Commerce Clause by classifying as a federal\noffense activity that does not have an effect on interstate commerce as required by the Supreme\nCourt's decision in  United States v. Lopez . It has also been argued that the law violates\nthe Equal\nProtection Clause by punishing domestic violence misdemeanors more harshly than other\nmisdemeanor offenses, by punishing misdemeanor but not felony offenses, and by excluding law\nenforcement officers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses from the public interest\nexception of 18 U.S.C. Section 925(a)(1). Furthermore, the law has been attacked as a violation of\nthe Ex Post Facto Clause on the basis that it prohibits the possession of a firearm by a domestic\nviolence misdemeanant even if the predicate offense occurred prior to its enactment.\n  Reviewing courts have rejected these challenges to the Lautenberg Amendment, determining\nthat its provisions fall within acceptable constitutional parameters. Regarding the Commerce Clause,\ncourts have held that the law contains an express jurisdictional element requiring a finding that the\nfirearm in question was possessed in or affecting commerce, or was received after having been\nshipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, obviating the concerns at issue in\n United\nStates v. Lopez . Equal Protection Clause challenges have been rejected upon the\ndetermination that\nCongress rationally concluded that misdemeanor domestic violence offenders should not possess\nfirearms. Finally, the courts have held that the law does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause in that\nit prohibits post-enactment possession and does not criminalize conduct occurring before its\nenactment.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31143",
          "sha1": "7c9cbdf5ca8d44f94bd1a368b4b1fac051146551",
          "filename": "files/20011001_RL31143_7c9cbdf5ca8d44f94bd1a368b4b1fac051146551.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20011001_RL31143_7c9cbdf5ca8d44f94bd1a368b4b1fac051146551.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}