by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
Twenty years ago Congress passed an amendment to Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that went on to impact both the sale of guns and the functioning of the United States military. The amendment, commonly known at the "Lautenberg Amendment" for its author, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, was actually titled the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban." It bans access to firearms and ammunition by people convicted of domestic violence.
The Lautenberg Amendment is good legislation, perhaps the last sensible effort to address the indiscriminate flooding of American society with guns. Domestic abusers are often violent and irrational, conditions which make them unfit to possess firearms. A report out today on National Public Radio (NPR) states that "in a majority of mass shootings, the shooter's current or former partner, or another family member, is among the victims." A well-armed domestic abuser is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Members of our armed forces are trained in the use of weapons, and they are expected to be ready to use weapons in the service of their country. The Lautenberg Amendment made no exceptions for military service men and women. Any member of the military convicted of domestic abuse is, by law, banned from having access to firearms - and that is as it should be. Consequently, those military personnel are normally put out of the service because they can no longer perform the most basic aspect of their military duties.
I worked as a civilian social worker with the military from 2005 until 2014, and a portion of my duties involved working with domestic abusers and their victims. I can strongly attest to the fact that there was much resentment in the military toward the Lautenberg Amendment, particularly by commanders, and there was constant pressure to minimize domestic violence so as to preserve the expensive assets of personnel who were already enlisted and trained. Once domestic violence was alleged and adjudicated, the units were denied the use of individuals who were well trained and battle-hardened, people whose displacement would eventually result in the hiring of more raw recruits.
Among senior officers and NCO's, the Lautenberg Amendment was often mocked and reviled.
Imagine my lack of surprise when I read yesterday that the shooter at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Devin Patrick Kelley, had been able to legally purchase the guns that he used in the massacre because the Air Force had neglected to enter his domestic abuse conviction into the National Criminal Information Center database - an entry that would have produced a red flag when he attempted to buy a gun or ammunition from licensed dealers. Kelley, in fact, passed two background checks by gun dealers.
The Air Force is blaming this screw-up on the Office of Special Investigations at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico where Kelley was stationed at the time of the incident and where he fractured the skull of his infant step-son. He should have been entered into the NCIC database for two reasons: first, he was convicted of a crime for which a penalty of more than a year in prison could have been imposed; and second, he was convicted of the specific crime of domestic abuse.
Two reasons to be entered into the NCIC database and denied the ability to legally purchase guns, yet there was an "oversight" and Devin Patrick Kelley was able to buy guns and annihilate a large group of people at the little church where his ex-wife and in-laws regularly worshiped.
Even the Air Force is able to recognize the pungent odor of pig manure, and it has called on the Pentagon's Inspector General to to snoop through the reporting habits of all of the branches of service to see if these "oversights" are, in fact, common practice.
I'm betting that will be another case where the results don't surprise me.
The United States Air Force owns some of what happened in Sutherland Springs - and so does the leadership of the entire U.S. military for its sustained antagonism toward a piece of sensible and necessary gun legislation.
Wearing a uniform does not exempt anyone from following the law.
Citizen Journalist
Twenty years ago Congress passed an amendment to Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 that went on to impact both the sale of guns and the functioning of the United States military. The amendment, commonly known at the "Lautenberg Amendment" for its author, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, was actually titled the "Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban." It bans access to firearms and ammunition by people convicted of domestic violence.
The Lautenberg Amendment is good legislation, perhaps the last sensible effort to address the indiscriminate flooding of American society with guns. Domestic abusers are often violent and irrational, conditions which make them unfit to possess firearms. A report out today on National Public Radio (NPR) states that "in a majority of mass shootings, the shooter's current or former partner, or another family member, is among the victims." A well-armed domestic abuser is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Members of our armed forces are trained in the use of weapons, and they are expected to be ready to use weapons in the service of their country. The Lautenberg Amendment made no exceptions for military service men and women. Any member of the military convicted of domestic abuse is, by law, banned from having access to firearms - and that is as it should be. Consequently, those military personnel are normally put out of the service because they can no longer perform the most basic aspect of their military duties.
I worked as a civilian social worker with the military from 2005 until 2014, and a portion of my duties involved working with domestic abusers and their victims. I can strongly attest to the fact that there was much resentment in the military toward the Lautenberg Amendment, particularly by commanders, and there was constant pressure to minimize domestic violence so as to preserve the expensive assets of personnel who were already enlisted and trained. Once domestic violence was alleged and adjudicated, the units were denied the use of individuals who were well trained and battle-hardened, people whose displacement would eventually result in the hiring of more raw recruits.
Among senior officers and NCO's, the Lautenberg Amendment was often mocked and reviled.
Imagine my lack of surprise when I read yesterday that the shooter at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Devin Patrick Kelley, had been able to legally purchase the guns that he used in the massacre because the Air Force had neglected to enter his domestic abuse conviction into the National Criminal Information Center database - an entry that would have produced a red flag when he attempted to buy a gun or ammunition from licensed dealers. Kelley, in fact, passed two background checks by gun dealers.
The Air Force is blaming this screw-up on the Office of Special Investigations at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico where Kelley was stationed at the time of the incident and where he fractured the skull of his infant step-son. He should have been entered into the NCIC database for two reasons: first, he was convicted of a crime for which a penalty of more than a year in prison could have been imposed; and second, he was convicted of the specific crime of domestic abuse.
Two reasons to be entered into the NCIC database and denied the ability to legally purchase guns, yet there was an "oversight" and Devin Patrick Kelley was able to buy guns and annihilate a large group of people at the little church where his ex-wife and in-laws regularly worshiped.
Even the Air Force is able to recognize the pungent odor of pig manure, and it has called on the Pentagon's Inspector General to to snoop through the reporting habits of all of the branches of service to see if these "oversights" are, in fact, common practice.
I'm betting that will be another case where the results don't surprise me.
The United States Air Force owns some of what happened in Sutherland Springs - and so does the leadership of the entire U.S. military for its sustained antagonism toward a piece of sensible and necessary gun legislation.
Wearing a uniform does not exempt anyone from following the law.
1 comment:
I recommend that everyone read in the ruling to Voisine v. United States, 59 U.S. ___ (2016). The SCOTUSblog reports it at http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/voisine-v-united-states/. While the timing of this case occurs after the finding of domestic abuse after the conviction of Devin Patrick Kelley it serves as a strengthening of the Lautenberg Amendment.
The case turns on the mens rea or culpable state of mind requirements for domestic abuse employed in 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9), the Lautenberg Amendment. By a 6-2 margin the Amendment held that domestic abuse convictions, IN COURTS OF RECORD, preclude possession of firearms by the abuser. Courts of record simply mean cases not tried in city court or by a justice of the peace. For the standard to be met the defendant must have the full protections of the criminal justice system including discovery, right to counsel, trial by jury, and of course the proceedings are recorded by an official court reporter. If the defendant wants to appeal there must be a court reporter. It is important that our local prosecutors file the domestic abuse charges in a court of record.
A footnote to the dissent, Justice Sotomayor joined with Justice Thomas. I think she did so to drag the court back to the position of having the Model Penal Code’s mens rea standards applied more consistently by courts hearing criminal law matters. Too often the mens rea is assumed from the criminal act, called the actus reus.
Post a Comment