The horror stories have begun to come in. The names and places may be different, but all across the country, millions of decent Americans are being disarmed as a result of last year's far-reaching gun ban.
Gun owners will recall that just before the Congress adjourned last year, Representatives snuck through two restrictive gun bans. One of the bans in particular, the Domestic Confiscation ban offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), has resulted in several million people losing their ability to defend themselves with a firearm.
GOA had warned every pro-gun Congressman that such a ban would become one of the most onerous gun restrictions passed in the last 30 years. But these warnings went unheeded as Congress gave President Clinton two more gun bans to sign into law.
Former Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas reported during a T.V. interview in December that many Congressmen were told by the House leadership that the "bill was clean of any gun control." Stockman notes that only the "warning from Gun Owners of America [told them] that this wasn't right."
This year, GOA lobbyists were working overtime on Capitol Hill, pushing support for a full repeal of this onerous ban.
And then in early March, Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID) introduced a bill (H.R. 1009) to repeal the entire Lautenberg ban. Entitled the "States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997," the bill lays out 16 findings that help advance the pro-gun cause. For instance, the bill states that,
* "Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. Of these self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault."
* "The Lautenberg Amendment oversteps federal authority, violating states' rights . . . [and] violates all notions of constitutional Due Process and constitutes an ex post facto law."
* "The Lautenberg Amendment does not deal with a subject delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, as interpreted by United States v. Lopez."
With the introduction of H.R. 1009, Rep. Chenoweth has clearly established herself as one of the premier defenders of the Second Amendment on Capitol Hill. Her cogent arguments and commitment to principle have set her apart from most of her colleagues.
H.R. 1009 is clearly superior to the other "repeals" that have been introduced. For example, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) have introduced H.R. 26 and S. 262 respectively, two bills that only repeal the part about past offenses. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) has introduced H.R. 445, a bill that will only exempt the police and military. All three bills stop far short of a full repeal.
"If the law is a bad idea for the police and military, then it is also a bad idea for everyone else," said GOA head Larry Pratt in a letter to the Congress. "And if the ban is bad retroactively, then it's a bad idea for the future as well.
"Don't just 'tweak' the law. A sick patient needs the entire cancer removed, not just pain killers to ease the pain."
All three bills (H.R. 26, H.R. 445 and S. 262) would leave most of the Lautenberg gun ban in the federal code. With this law still on the books, it will be very easy for Congress to extend the ban -- and thus, to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights for other small offenses as well.
Thus, Helen Chenoweth's bill (H.R. 1009) is clearly the "horse" that gun owners should ride in arriving at a Lautenberg repeal in this Congress.
Last September, some staffers on Capitol Hill simply could not believe that the Lautenberg ban could be as bad as GOA was predicting. And yet, press reports all across the country have now documented the sweeping nature of the Domestic Confiscation ban.
For example, the Wall Street Journal recently confirmed that the problems cited by GOA before the ban passed are now, in fact, occurring. According to the December 23, 1996 article in the Journal, the gun ban is:
* Disarming many law enforcement officers and American servicemen across the country;
* Disarming men and women for domestic disputes that occurred 20 years ago or more; and is
* Threatening to disarm parents who have been convicted for simply spanking their children.
For now, this gun ban only applies to certain misdemeanors, but it sets a very bad precedent, since previously, only serious crimes -- such as felonies, dishonorable discharges, etc. -- could strip a person of his or her rights.
A person can lose his or her guns forever under the Lautenberg gun ban for "the use or attempted use of physical force" against a family member.(1) Notice that you can lose your Second Amendment rights even for the "attempted use" of force.
Imagine that . . . losing one's gun rights just for spanking -- or merely "attempting" to spank -- one's child in the grocery store.
Moreover, in some cases, you can lose your gun rights without even a jury trial! Many misdemeanors do not guarantee a jury trial, and the new law does not require that one must be tried by a jury before losing his or her gun rights. Many offenders are now shocked to learn that a minor infraction from their teenage years is preventing them from owning a gun for life.
The nation has only just begun to learn about the hidden horrors that were lodged in this new ban. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Congress held no hearings on the Lautenberg Act before it was enacted and most congressmen will likely be surprised at the police backlash against the law. . . . Thanks to the Lautenberg Act, there are probably at least one million new felons in this nation -- people with misdemeanor convictions who retain their firearms because they are unaware of their duty to disarm themselves. The act should be repealed.
That's right. Those affected by this new law -- even if they don't realize it yet -- have a duty to disarm themselves or face a felony prosecution!
In his memo of November 1996, the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms stated that persons covered by the provisions of this law must "immediately [and] lawfully dispose of their firearms and ammunition" -- even for a misdemeanor occurring 20 years ago.
If a person does not disarm himself, then he will be guilty of a felony which could subject him to a $250,000 fine and a ten year prison sentence.
Spanking a child. Slapping a husband. Pushing a spouse out of the way. All of these demonstrations of "physical force" are enough to disarm someone for life.
The head of the BATF has stated the gun ban applies to "all misdemeanors that involve the use or attempted use of physical force."
Thus, an attempt by a wife to push her husband out of the doorway, as he is blocking her exit from their home, is a crime which would impose a lifetime gun ban on her, even if no physical contact occurred.
Or something as innocuous as the First Lady throwing a lamp at her husband would even fit this definition. If convicted of this "crime" -- or if the spouse merely plea-bargained to the same -- the "lamp thrower" would now be disarmed for life.
Any domestic violence misdemeanor, no matter how minor or insignificant, will now revoke one's God-given right to use arms for self-defense. Consider what is already happening:
* In Ohio, one GOA member had an intense verbal argument with his father ten years ago. The father landed his son in jail for one night to "teach him a lesson." But he was surprised to learn the next morning that he could not drop the charges against his son. The resulting domestic violence misdemeanor against the son is now preventing this 27 year old from becoming a law-enforcement officer and from ever again defending his life with a gun.
* In Virginia, a gun collector owning more than $100,00 worth of firearms now must dump his entire collection because of an argument with his wife that resulted in a $10 fine for a domestic violence misdemeanor more than 20 years ago! Never mind the fact that he has lived an exemplary life since then, and has otherwise been happily married to the same woman for 34 years.
* In Illinois, another GOA member lost her gun rights after calling the police to her home. When her first husband returned home drunk one evening, ten years ago, an argument ensued and he started breaking out the windows in the house. Frightened, she called the police, but when they arrived they claimed there was nothing they could do since it was his own property.
Angered by her husband's smug look, she slapped him in the face, right in front of the police officer. Incredibly, the police arrested her and took her to jail, charging her with simple assault. In order to avoid the costly expense of a trial and hiring an attorney, she pled guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a $25 fine.
Now because of the Lautenberg gun ban, she can no longer own guns, and her current husband can't even keep his guns in the house where she and he live together.
All because legislators snuck through a gun ban -- without hearings -- in the closing hours of the 104th Congress.
All because "pro-gun" legislators in Congress decided to federalize a state issue, and after disregarding the Constitution, even failed to make any distinction between disarming truly violent "wife beaters" and disarming "beaten wives."
The gun banners claim they just want to target "wife abusers." But clearly, this legislation goes much further than that. This ban does not target violent felons. Felons had already forfeited their civil rights.
No, the gun ban targets misdemeanors (minor infractions), which means that even the conviction of a woman who slaps her husband in anger would now be enough to revoke her gun rights forever!
In fact, recent press reports indicate that many women will be unduly affected by this gun ban. According to the Wall Street Journal,
Bogus charges of domestic violence are routinely used as tactics in divorce proceedings, and many people who plea-bargained 20 years ago on such a charge and paid a small court fine (instead of spending $5,000 in legal fees to defend themselves) will be surprised to discover that they have lost one of their constitutional rights. . . . [W]omen are not exempted from the new law, and even though they may need guns more than physically stronger men, they are increasingly likely to be stripped of the means of self-defense by its provisions.
Peter Proctor, a forensic expert in Houston, says that, "Many domestic violence charges are false -- perhaps as many as one-third where child custody or divorce issues are involved."
In addition, since the late 1980's, many localities have begun requiring the police to charge abusers of both sexes, even if there's no clear physical sign of violence or the victim doesn't want to press charges.
"Women are being charged with assault when it's self-defense or fictitious," says Sue Osthoff of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. "When the web is thrown out, women come back in, often inappropriately."
The problems that will result from the Lautenberg gun ban are not fictitious. Decent, law-abiding Americans have already lost their lives after being wrongfully disarmed by the police.
Consider Polly Pryzbyl of Cheektowaga, New York. She was murdered by her husband in 1994, only days after the police had taken away her gun.
When Polly had separated from her husband a few days earlier, she took her children to her mother's house. Her husband showed up one day and threatened them, but she repelled the attack after brandishing a pistol. The police arrived shortly afterwards and confiscated her firearm.
A few days later, Polly went with her mother to her husband's house to pick up some clothes for her kids. Her husband, who was home, stepped out of his house and killed them both.
GOA will keep its members and activists informed on the
status of H.R. 1009, the bill to fully repeal the Lautenberg gun
ban. Look for updates in both the alerts and newsletter sections
of this Website.
-----------------------
1. Congressional Record, 9/28/96, p. H11743, Sec. 658 of the
Treasury-Postal portion of H.R. 3610.