Domestic violence misdemeanor carrying black powder?

[MoJo]

He really needs to consult an attorney.

Internet advise is worth just what you pay for it. I would hate to see him wind up in jail.

[The Annoyed Man]

What is really wrong about the Lautenberg law is that there seems to be no mechanism whereby someone who has demonstrated a long period of being a good citizen can have his rights restored. A convicted felon, even one who has more than one conviction, in which the last date of conviction goes back far enough, can petition a court for the restoration of his rights. Should someone be able to do that with a FV conviction that is old enough?

[kcatx]

What is really wrong about the Lautenberg law is that there seems to be no mechanism whereby someone who has demonstrated a long period of being a good citizen can have his rights restored. A convicted felon, even one who has more than one conviction, in which the last date of conviction goes back far enough, can petition a court for the restoration of his rights. Should someone be able to do that with a FV conviction that is old enough?

Wow, I just looked up that law, it seems you are correct. I understand the intent of the law (and don't disagree with it really), but it seems crazy that felons can get their rights back but other people who may have done lessor crimes cannot.

I'll tell him to get some *real* legal advice from an attorney before even considering carrying it anywhere.
I'm planning on joining either CCW Safe or [Pre-paid legal service] soon, I wonder if they would know..

[bizarrenormality]

If the law made any sense, there would be no exemptions for government employees.

[lfinsr]

What is really wrong about the Lautenberg law is that there seems to be no mechanism whereby someone who has demonstrated a long period of being a good citizen can have his rights restored.

I agree. A mistake you made as a young adult should not haunt you the rest of your life. This is similar to the veteran that was denied a firearm purchase for a misdemeanor drug conviction he had back in the 70's.

[Jumping Frog]

What is really wrong about the Lautenberg law is that there seems to be no mechanism whereby someone who has demonstrated a long period of being a good citizen can have his rights restored. A convicted felon, even one who has more than one conviction, in which the last date of conviction goes back far enough, can petition a court for the restoration of his rights. Should someone be able to do that with a FV conviction that is old enough?

That depends on state law.

For example, Ohio has law that explicitly reinstates firearms rights. You have to petition the Ohio court where the Ohio conviction happened, and appear before the judge. The prosecutor has the right to speak for/against the petition. Filing fees are $50 and do not require a lawyer (although I recommend one).

When the judge grants the petition, any federal firearms disabilities that applied due to the Ohio conviction(s) are now voided.

Similarly, Ohio has a law where a similar petition process can get your record sealed. The law limits the conditions, such as certain types of violent felonies are not eligible. Also a maximum of 1 lifetime felony plus 1 lifetime misdemeanor (in any state), or limited to 2 misdemeanors.

If the record is sealed, then the conviction(s) do not apply to a federal firearms disability.

[jimlongley]

What is really wrong about the Lautenberg law is that there seems to be no mechanism whereby someone who has demonstrated a long period of being a good citizen can have his rights restored. A convicted felon, even one who has more than one conviction, in which the last date of conviction goes back far enough, can petition a court for the restoration of his rights. Should someone be able to do that with a FV conviction that is old enough?

What I can't find right now, and I was sure I preserved, is part of lautenberg's amicus brief where he stated that his aim was to not only deny gun ownership for life, but that that threat would be a deterrent to family violence.

[Dadtodabone]

What is really wrong about the Lautenberg law is that there seems to be no mechanism whereby someone who has demonstrated a long period of being a good citizen can have his rights restored. A convicted felon, even one who has more than one conviction, in which the last date of conviction goes back far enough, can petition a court for the restoration of his rights. Should someone be able to do that with a FV conviction that is old enough?

What I can't find right now, and I was sure I preserved, is part of lautenberg's amicus brief where he stated that his aim was to not only deny gun ownership for life, but that that threat would be a deterrent to family violence.

Here's a link to the ABA archives:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf