[Ghost863]

In 1994 and again in 1996 I was falsely accused of domestic violence because my ex wife was having an affair with other people and I decided to leave her. As result I was convicted. In October of 1996 Democratic Senator Frank D. Laughtenberg from New Jersey went into a closed session and made law what is now called the Laughtenberg amendment, which strips the right to own, possess or have access to a firearm. I have created a petition to repeal this law and need 100,000 signatures before February 16, 2019. Below is the gist of my petition: Dear friends,

I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People, a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 99,999 signatures by February 16, 2019, the White House will review it and respond!

We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the White House to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets enough support, the White House will issue an official response.

You can view and sign the petition here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-1996-laughtenberg-amendment-brady-bill

Here's some more information about this petition:

Repeal the 1996 Laughtenberg Amendment to the Brady bill

The 1996 Laughtenberg amendment is unconstitutional in that it denies law abiding citizens that have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge from owning possessing or having access to a firearm. This law basically denies us the right to protect our own lives or those of our families in cases of extreme emergencies and does not give equal representation to all. This law also cost many of those in law enforcement and military to resign thereby creating a financial hardship on many otherwise law abiding citizens.

I would ask that any who sign to please pass this on to all that they know and to post on your facebook pages and other social media. Thank you for taking the time to read this all of the way through.

 

[Von]

In 1994 and again in 1996 I was falsely accused <SNIP>

Wait, what? TWICE???

I guess you could be "falsely convicted" ONCE...maybe...perhaps....but

TWICE??

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.

-von

 

[America's Patriot]

That's not fair to say considering we don't know the circumstances. Maybe she's just a vindictive person...


Then again, that's not fair for me to say considering I don't know the circumstances either. Maybe he's a stalker...


We're in a catch-22 here...

 

[Von]

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.

-von

That's not fair to say considering we don't know the circumstances. Maybe she's just a vindictive person...


Then again, that's not fair for me to say considering I don't know the circumstances either. Maybe he's a stalker...


We're in a catch-22 here...

 

[Ghost863]

Obviously you have no idea what it takes to get arrested for domestic violence, with the way the laws are now you do not even have to touch a person, all you have to do is tell her where to go and she can say she felt threatened and bam you are in jail. But as you so eloquently put it "those of us who proudly served" (yes I proudly served as well) your oath of enlistment must not mean anything at all to you. Do you not remember and I quote "I do solemnly swear to defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic, so help me God" ? I sure do, it is a statement that forever ingrained it's essence into my brain for as long as I live. And this amendment is entirely unconstitutional as Thomas Jefferson said when drafting the Virginia state constitution "No free man shall ever be debarred of keeping and bearing arms" Our founding father's intent was set clear with that statement as well as the statement in the second amendment which says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not (I repeat SHALL NOT) be infringed.

 

[Ghost863]

Yes Von, I was convicted. The first time they came to me with 30 days time served and no Domestic violence conviction (they lied) and the second time the judge told me if I did not take the plea agreement that he would personally make sure I lost the trial (yes I was ready to pick out my jury because I sat in jail for 182 days for a crime I did not commit) and when I lost he would sentence me to no less than 20 years in the state prison. being young and stupid I felt I had no other choice and took the plea deal. I have since divorced her and I have not spoken a word to her since then (23 years later) because I promised her that if she ever had me locked up again I would have nothing else to do with her as long as I lived. And I am a man of my word.

 

[Von]

DO NOT attempt to diminish the sanctity of MY Oath of Office.

I'm not the convicted criminal here.

This has squat to do with our Oath of Enlistment or my Oath of Office.

You can not apply today's social or legal stance on what constitutes violence to a crime you committed 25 YEARS AGO.

And don't throw the 2A in here, that's a red herring.

The point is that you were arrested TWICE and convicted at least once for Domestic Violence. It does suck that NJ is punishing you like a felon, but that's the law of the land, at least in NJ.

-von

 

[PurpleKitty]

I just can't feel sorry for you.

I have been on the bad end of DV and it leaves a scar. The fact that I have to keep my ****ing purse, cell phone, and emergency cash, right next to my bed in case he goes buggo....

But he would likely not be convicted because he is very disabled. I just stay out of his way when he's raving but when did I have to start doing that?

Yeah, I'm going to opt out of this thread.

 

[Ghost863]

Well buddy I regret to inform you that is the law in all 50 states as it is U.S. Title code 18 statute 922 paragraph 9. And I was not in NJ. as a matter of fact it happened in Florida. But that is ok, you hang on to your self righteous beliefs (after all you are entitled to them by the constitution) The only thing is what are you going to do when they expand the laws to confiscate all firearms regardless of a crime or not? You see, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has a plan that involves a 70% tax hike on the wealthy so she can implement her plan for a "Green New World". When the wealthy decide to leave and take their money with them, where do you think that 70% income tax is going to go? It is going to fall on people like you and I. Well they can't take your money as long as you are armed so the first order of business will be to take your weapons so you will not be able to fight them. Also during her 2016 presidential bid The Benghazi Butcher a.k.a. Hillary Clinton announced that the supreme court had it all wrong and that when she became president she would enact laws that would disarm all American citizens. So the next time you want to say it will never happen all you have to do is ask a Holocaust survivor if it can. Oh and I almost forgot about Senator Eric Swalwell (D. California) who said he was willing to nuke Americans who would not give up their firearms. But hey what do I know? I'm just a low life piece of crap that was convicted, right?

 

[Ghost863]

PurpleKitty, I am so very sorry that you have to live like that. Nobody should have to live with that kind of fear. Unfortunately there are many times that the accusations are just not true, and I too am a victim. I am not asking for your sympathy (you definitely have mine and I wish you the best of luck with your situation) But just like the #METOO movement, not everyone is guilty.

 

[Ghost863]

Oh and since we all know that the Justice system is 100% honest and fair, I sincerely hope you are never falsely accused of any crime.

 

[SeaBeeDaddy]

Ghost863. As you can see and have probably experienced the mere mention of domestic violence is very triggering. I would re-word your entire petition and write it keeping in mind that most readers are going to focus on the violence aspect of it and connect that with accessibility to firearms.

Even though this law really solves nothing and protects no one it reads very common sense most people.

 

[Ghost863]

The only problem with it is that it encompasses that very issue. In the county I live in if an officer comes out to your residence because of a complaint, their policy is that someone is going to jail. In 1996, my ex wife was actually having an affair with the arresting officer and the Sheriff's dept. did not want a scandal so they forced my conviction. What the real issue here is not whether or not I did anything illegal but that I got convicted. I have heard so many stories over the years that proved to be false allegations resulting in convictions, that it is entirely unreal. When I was growing up they actually had to do investigative work to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty. Those days are long gone as now all you have to do is be accused and that alone makes you guilty. Case in point is Brett Kavanaugh. The media was so ready to say he was guilty before he even had a chance to defend himself. And let's not forget that every couple of years the justice system targets specific topics in which they intend to make examples out of. The bottom line is this, I have the very same rights as any other American citizen to protect not only my life but those that I love as well. How would those that would strip me of my right like it if we were standing in a crowd and that crowd gets shot up and he looks at me and says take my weapon and defend my family I have been shot, and I turn to him and say I'm sorry I can't help you. I have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and by law I cannot touch that weapon?

 

[SeaBeeDaddy]

The only problem with it is that it encompasses that very issue. In the county I live in if an officer comes out to your residence because of a complaint, their policy is that someone is going to jail. In 1996, my ex wife was actually having an affair with the arresting officer and the Sheriff's dept. did not want a scandal so they forced my conviction. What the real issue here is not whether or not I did anything illegal but that I got convicted. I have heard so many stories over the years that proved to be false allegations resulting in convictions, that it is entirely unreal. When I was growing up they actually had to do investigative work to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty. Those days are long gone as now all you have to do is be accused and that alone makes you guilty. Case in point is Brett Kavanaugh. The media was so ready to say he was guilty before he even had a chance to defend himself. And let's not forget that every couple of years the justice system targets specific topics in which they intend to make examples out of. The bottom line is this, I have the very same rights as any other American citizen to protect not only my life but those that I love as well. How would those that would strip me of my right like it if we were standing in a crowd and that crowd gets shot up and he looks at me and says take my weapon and defend my family I have been shot, and I turn to him and say I'm sorry I can't help you. I have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and by law I cannot touch that weapon?

The problem is you are using an extremely rare scenario to battle an extremely common occurrence. Their is exponentially more domestic violence occurring than random shootings or even home invasions.

If you use the angle that you need a gun to protect your family, it is very easy to counter that your family is in much more danger of you, as proven, than by someone else.

Personally, I don't think anyone living freely should have their inalienable rights infringed. I just think there might be a better way of presenting that.

 

[leadcounsel]

Wait, what? TWICE???

I guess you could be "falsely convicted" ONCE...maybe...perhaps....but

TWICE??

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.

-von

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.

-von

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.
https://youtu.be/2DUmqGStNj8?t=14

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.

 

[SeaBeeDaddy]

Here is the angle I would use:

25 – Estimated percentage of divorces in which an allegation of domestic violence is made (1).

32 – Number of states with civil definitions of domestic “violence” that include being afraid, fearful, apprehensive, or experiencing emotional distress (2).

48 – Number of states in which judges awarding child custody are required to consider allegations or findings of domestic violence (3).

50 – Percentage of restraining orders in which physical assault is not even alleged, according to an authoritative Massachusetts study (4).

70 – Percentage of restraining orders that are trivial or false (5).

85 – Percentage of all restraining orders that are issued against men (the remaining 15% are against women) (6).

http://www.saveservices.org/camp/faam-2011/false-accusations-of-domestic-violence-by-the-numbers/

 

[leadcounsel]

Ghost863. As you can see and have probably experienced the mere mention of domestic violence is very triggering. I would re-word your entire petition and write it keeping in mind that most readers are going to focus on the violence aspect of it and connect that with accessibility to firearms.

Even though this law really solves nothing and protects no one it reads very common sense most people.

Exactly. Anyone wanting to study this injustice should visit the "Equal Justice Foundation." http://ejfi.org/
Lots of examples.

The term "domestic violence" has been hijacked.

It conjures images of a frail cowering violently abused woman, battered, cold, lonely, maybe even sexually assaulted, etc. Of course, nobody condones that. (And frankly, we already have laws that cover these things - felony assault and sex assault.)

No, instead, what the DV laws are predominantly used for is mutual shouting matches, mutual fighting/struggling, very minor assault that often leaves almost no trace (tiny scratches, minor bruising, etc.). They are widely abused and used as tools by women who are coached by prosecutors and victim advocates to lie and fabricate and say "buzz words" to get a conviction.
Why? Power. A lot easier to get the kids and custody and a fat monthly court ordered stipend called "child support" against an evil labled "domestic abuser." A lot easier to get the home, the car, the bank account, etc. whilst also de-emasculating the man and humiliating him. And for a really soured relationship (say there's cheating or lying involved) some vindictive spiteful partners really take great joy in ruining the other person.

I had a client who was convicted (before retaining me) because he THREW FOLDED CLEAN LAUNDRY OFF THE BED AT HIS WIFE, AFTER SHE THREW CERAMIC DISHES AT HIM! He stormed out, throwing Christmas presents on the lawn. He was convicted of DV for the "laundry assault."

I've read of cases where the man UNPLUGS the telephone, another case where a man punched a hole in his OWN WALL out of frustration, another case where the woman was physically blocking the door so he grabbed her and moved her aside so he could LEAVE the home. These will result in DV misdemeanor convictions and loss of gun rights on federal and most state levels.

It is so insane that anyone with a brain would not support the DV laws as written or applied. Sadly, "domestic violence" triggers a very emotional reaction and people don't understand the legal application, and they lose their MINDS when they hear the term. As seen in this thread from very brainwashed prejudiced people who shut down logic and just want to ruin anyone accused.

 

[PurpleKitty]

If you're talking about me I have done nothing to hurt him, nothing but bitch online and to one trusted person in real life. I have bent over backwards so far I have stuck my head up my own ass.

I have had to flee my own home in the middle of the night more than once, lain in bed truly afraid he would hurt me, etc. It's not something to mock. I carry escape money on me at all times, because I needed it once and didn't have it.

The whole "all women are out to get all men" is as bad as the "all men are out to get all women".

I love men. I love my husband, in spite of it all. In his case he has a head injury. The alcohol just makes it worse. He also has no one else and will end up in a nursing home if I leave him. I have been able to protect myself. I went from one bad family into another, is all. I was a young, dumb, brain-damaged, mentally ill kid without medication. I think I've done damned well.

I have turned "turning the cheek" into a ****ing art form.

Edit to add, after his injury I joined a head injury message board. He got violent with me one day and they all yawned, so to speak "It happens with all head injury patients". That was an eye opener.

 

[Ghost863]

Here is the angle I would use:


http://www.saveservices.org/camp/faam-2011/false-accusations-of-domestic-violence-by-the-numbers/

When I went to college and got my degree in computer science anytime I wrote a paper I had to cite my source. You did this but you left out much of it as well. Here are the statistics according to the web site in which you listed:


False Accusations of Domestic Violence, By the Numbers
Home/CAMP/2011: False Allegations Awareness Month/False Accusations of Domestic Violence, By the Numbers
*

0 – Number of district attorneys in the United States who routinely prosecute false allegations of domestic violence.

25 – Estimated percentage of divorces in which an allegation of domestic violence is made (1).

32 – Number of states with civil definitions of domestic “violence” that include being afraid, fearful, apprehensive, or experiencing emotional distress (2).

48 – Number of states in which judges awarding child custody are required to consider allegations or findings of domestic violence (3).

50 – Percentage of restraining orders in which physical assault is not even alleged, according to an authoritative Massachusetts study (4).

70 – Percentage of restraining orders that are trivial or false (5).

85 – Percentage of all restraining orders that are issued against men (the remaining 15% are against women) (6).

2000 – Estimated number of taxpayer dollars spent for the issuing, servicing, and adjudicating of one restraining order (7).

2005 – The year in which a restraining order was served on TV personality David Letterman for allegedly beaming televised code words and seductive eye gestures at Colleen Nestler, a woman whom Letterman had never met.

700,000 – Number of persons wrongfully arrested for domestic violence each year (8).

1.5 million – Number of temporary restraining orders issued each year in the United States that are trivial or false (9).

20 billion – Number of dollars that taxpayers spend each year for welfare and public benefit services arising from false allegations of domestic violence that force children into single-parent households (10).

 

[SeaBeeDaddy]

When I went to college and got my degree in computer science anytime I wrote a paper I had to cite my source. You did this but you left out much of it as well. Here are the statistics according to the web site in which you listed:


.

I left them out on purpose and chose the ones you should use as an effective argument for your case.