Dear Colleague,

Imagine that 10 years ago you committed a foolish mistake, such as drunk driving. You were arrested, plead guilty and served whatever penalty the state felt was appropriate at the time. Since then, you have behaved responsibly and gone about your life.

Let's fast forward to present day where drunk driving still remains a serious problem for the nation, and that some well meaning federal lawmakers decide that the penalties for the crime you committed 10 years ago are not serious enough. So they pass a law which says that anyone who has ever been convicted of a drunk driving offense must give up his or her driver's license. Suddenly, you and thousands of Americans who already faced justice for a past misdemeanor -- and who have behaved responsibly since -- must pay a new and significant penalty.

Would that be fair?

Most people would think such action goes too far. However, we raise this question because something very similar has happened to another class of people.

Last fall, during a last minute maneuver with H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Appropriations bill (Public Law 104-208), Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey inserted an amendment into Section 658 that bans gun ownership by any person ever convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Many of our colleagues did not know the Lautenberg Amendment was there when they voted on the bill. The amendment was never subjected to a full debate in the House of Representatives.

Let us say that domestic violence is a serious issue in America today. Also, we know all of our colleagues strongly believe that punishment should match the crime. Crimes that are felonies should be punished as felonies. And felons are already prohibited from owning guns. Misdemeanors should be punished as misdemeanors. If states or judges want to attach additional penalties to these crimes, they should do so. But deciding at the federal level to establish new punishments for misdemeanors after the fact is just plain wrong.

As you know, the Lautenberg Amendment had the commendable goal of trying to disarm abusive people before they kill someone. But the amendment also has the effect of penalizing many law-abiding Americans who have already faced justice. Ironically, the amendment even has the effect of disarming many women (whom I assume Sen. Lautenberg was trying to protect). The fact remains, however, that this is a state issue, not a federal issue, and states already have the right and ability to disarm criminals, felony or misdemeanor, including any and all domestic violence offenses.

There are other problems with the Lautenberg Amendment. It constitutes an unfunded federal mandate by passing the enormous cost of enforcing this provision along to the states. Also, the Lautenberg amendment does not specifically deal with a subject delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment as interpreted by United States vs. Lopez. Finally, the amendment violates all notions of constitutional due process and constitutes an ex post facto law because it imposes a criminal penalty on crimes which were not subject to that penalty at the time H.R. 3610 was signed into law.

For these reasons and more, we have introduced H.R. 1009, the States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment. If you would like to join us in repealing this violation of the Tenth Amendment, please contact Joe Mertz (5-6611).

Warm Regards,