Wait, what? TWICE???
I guess you could be "falsely convicted" ONCE...maybe...perhaps....but
Twice is a PATTERN. Can't blame the wife.
No sympathy here.
Like most gentleman, especially those of us who have Served, I have a ZERO TOLERANCE rule for wife/woman/child abuse IN.ANY.FORM.
BUT he wasn't just accused - he was CONVICTED.
How do we know this? Because he can't own a gun.
The law applies to those CONVICTED of domestic violence.
I don't need (or want) to know more. Smoke/fire.
Spare us the indignation and holier-than-though attitude.
First, as a lawyer working in these arenas, I can say Lautenberg is a grave injustice, it's plainly Unconstitutional, and it's widely abused. The amount of "evidence" for a DV misdemeanor conviction is slim and easily fabricated. It requires little more than a woman going into court and claiming she's afraid for her life. Often just a mean text message or voicemail or an argument is "sufficient." That's not hard to fabricate and secure a conviction...
So unless you are immune to false allegations which literally require no evidence, or never had a heated argument with a girlfriend, you're at risk no matter how you live your life. Just look at Judge Kavanaugh's experience. Now apply that to average Joe with cops showing up and arresting and a prosecutor convicting on literally no evidence...
DV allegations are very common and particularly when a relationship sours or for a female (generally speaking) to gain leverage, economic power, property, and/or custody rights. Or simply pure spite, lunatic, or vindictiveness. It's a WMD that costs the complainer nothing and ruins her opponent - akin to just firing a lighting bolt from your finger and ruining your opponent.
Don't believe women can fabricate "assault?" Wrong. When dealing with emotionally unstable, desperate, crazy, vindictive women, they can do anything to fake an assault. Watch this video for proof. This man was accused of beating his wife. This video saved him.
It's a threat to anyone interested in fairness and families and civil liberties and the 2A. It's an effective tool to disarm a man, ruin his reputation, possibly cost him his job (anything relating to firearms - police, military, security, gun store employee, etc.), take away self defense tools, and possibly cost him tens of thousands in legal fees and lost firearms.
Second, in the OPs case, he isn't apparently asking for sympathy. He's explained a situation that is not uncommon. And in his case it's particularly wrong and chilling because it applied ex post facto,
which is fundamentally unfair.
I'll sign it and encourage others to sign it.