702:
deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim. (B) (i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless— (I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and (II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either (aa) the case was tried by a jury, or (bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise. (ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
60:
456:
requirement says that the relationship must be both sexual and involve cohabitation or a child in common. A Brady indicator trigger is generated when the requirements apply, resulting in the restraining order being noted in a federal database as prohibiting the possession of firearms. However, the state forms used for restraining orders do not always clearly indicate whether the specific federal criteria apply, making it difficult to determine whether the firearms restriction applies without a detailed reading of the order, the petition, and other court records.
415:
405:(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
262:
470:(No. 99-10331) (5th Cir. 2001). See also U.S. v. Emerson, 231 Fed. Appx. 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (Same defendant seeking review of judgment). The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child.
701:
18 USC 921(a)(33): (33) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" means an offense that— (i) is a misdemeanor under
Federal, State, or Tribal  law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a
531:
ruled that the
Lautenberg amendment is constitutional. Chovan claimed that his civil rights had been restored due to California law, but according to federal law, his rights had never been restored. The court also stated that a person cannot have their civil rights restored if they were never taken
455:
The hearing requirement ensures that the firearms restrictions will not apply after an initial ex parte hearing during which a temporary order is granted, but only after a longer term order is granted following a hearing in which both parties have the opportunity to be heard. The intimate partner
426:
included a provision restricting respondents to final protective orders from possessing, receiving, transporting, or shipping firearms or ammunition. For restrictions arising from a restraining order there are several requirements before the restrictions apply as follows:
555:
state law. Specifically holding that the ""physical force" requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction — namely, offensive touching", thereby preventing him from possession of firearms. Most recently, the
Supreme Court in
474:
does not address the portion of the
Lautenberg Amendment involving conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. It was initially overturned in 1999 for being unconstitutional, but that case was reversed upon appeal in 2001.
541:(2009), the Supreme Court held that the predicate offense does not need to include a domestic relationship as an element, so long as a domestic relationship did in fact exist between the perpetrator and the victim.
337:
in 1996, which bans access to firearms for life by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the
Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator
369:
and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.
121:
392:(II) in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
895:
816:
547:(2014) challenged the application of the law to misdemeanor convictions which did not involve "the use or attempted use of physical force". In a 9–0 decision, the
794:
780:
361:
The act bans shipment, transport, possession, ownership, and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The
528:
342:
520:
where it was ruled that the threat of being subjected to the gun ban did not turn an otherwise "petty" crime into a "serious" one requiring a jury trial.
1000:
995:
654:
99:
70:
990:
201:
223:
84:
638:"Criminal Resource Manual 1117 Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence"
248:
39:
551:
held that
Castleman's conviction of "misdemeanor domestic assault" did qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under
389:(I) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
290:
962:
191:
176:
562:, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), decided that the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban in U.S. federal law extends to those convicted of
151:
106:
307:, often called the "Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence",
398:(bb) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
116:
17:
970:
548:
374:
325:
386:(i) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
196:
166:
111:
914:
532:
away in the first place since the
Lautenberg amendment does not take away a person’s right to vote or be on a jury.
623:
577:
89:
873:
218:
957:
637:
598:
156:
35:
334:
171:
141:
31:
668:
450:—defendant must be deemed a credible threat to the petitioner or be barred from the use of physical force
320:
283:
136:
543:
423:
308:
228:
186:
558:
466:
181:
146:
317:
346:
161:
928:
584:
because it makes the
Lautenberg Amendment apply to people in a significant dating relationship.
857:
537:
276:
208:
59:
362:
266:
126:
378:
333:), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the
8:
751:
482:, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999) also challenged this law, and the case was rejected. The
593:
581:
563:
838:
566:
409:
329:
238:
967:
338:
243:
603:
414:
79:
445:—must restrain the defendant from harassing, stalking, or threatening behavior
984:
484:
350:
233:
896:"Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights"
724:
365:
and subsequent amendments had previously prohibited anyone convicted of a
349:
of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President
345:, involving underenforcement of domestic violence laws brought under the
213:
30:
This article is about a United States law. For other related topics, see
915:"The Supreme Court quietly handed gun control advocates a small victory"
874:"How Bad Does Domestic Violence Have to Be Before You Can't Have a Gun?"
94:
495:, 26 F.3d 282 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 246 (1994) (denying
464:
This law has been tested but supported in federal court with the case
573:
552:
435:—the defendant must have had the opportunity to be heard at a hearing
341:(D-NJ). Lautenberg proposed the amendment after a decision from the
781:"US V. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2001"
655:"US v. Chovan, 735 F. 3d 1127 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2013"
975:
410:
Restraining order restrictions (preceded the
Lautenberg Amendment)
353:
signed the law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.
752:"Confronting the Issue of Gun Seizure in Domestic Violence Cases"
366:
759:
Journal of the Center for Families, Children and the Courts
38:. For the US refugee program for religious minorities, see
40:
Jackson–Vanik amendment § Lautenberg Amendment (1990)
440:—the defendant and petitioner must be intimate partners
725:"Protection Orders and Federal Firearms Restrictions"
529:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
343:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
418:
Restraining order noting the potential firearms ban
309:
851:
982:
958:Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual
821:, vol. 185, December 3, 1998, p. 693
372:The definition of 'convicted' can be found in
34:. For the gun violence restraining order, see
284:
929:"S.2938 - Bipartisan Safer Communities Act"
509:based challenge to a 922(g)(4) conviction).
1001:United States federal firearms legislation
996:United States federal criminal legislation
799:, vol. 46, April 7, 1999, p. 598
731:. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
480:Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana
291:
277:
488:aspects of the law were challenged with:
991:Acts of the 104th United States Congress
499:challenge to a 922(g)(1) conviction) and
413:
893:
224:Right to keep and bear arms in the U.S.
197:International treaties for arms control
14:
983:
968:Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
719:
717:
671:Wynn John Terre v. City of Los Angeles
192:History of concealed carry in the U.S.
912:
395:(aa) the case was tried by a jury, or
107:Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
749:
743:
649:
647:
513:Both of the challenges were denied.
714:
24:
424:Violence Against Women Act of 1994
314:Tooltip Public Law (United States)
305:Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
132:Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
25:
1012:
951:
818:Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis
644:
516:Likewise this law was invoked in
448:Credible Threat or Physical Force
167:Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA)
122:Connecticut Children's Safety Act
894:Johnson, Carrie (27 June 2016).
578:Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
459:
260:
90:Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
58:
921:
906:
887:
866:
831:
809:
787:
913:Lopez, German (27 June 2016).
773:
705:
695:
661:
630:
616:
505:, 23 F.3d 29 (2nd Cir. 1994) (
204:Background Check System (NICS)
13:
1:
963:The Consumer Law Page Article
609:
599:Firearm Owners Protection Act
177:Gun laws in the U.S. by state
157:Firearm Owners Protection Act
102:Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
36:Extreme Risk Protection Order
335:104th United States Congress
142:Federal Firearms Act of 1938
32:Outline of domestic violence
7:
839:"Order striking jury trial"
587:
549:United States Supreme Court
209:National Firearms Act (NFA)
137:Federal Assault Weapons Ban
117:Concealed carry in the U.S.
100:Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
85:Assault weapons legislation
48:Firearm legal topics of the
10:
1017:
859:United States v. Castleman
544:United States v. Castleman
356:
229:Second Amendment sanctuary
187:High-capacity magazine ban
29:
202:National Instant Criminal
559:Voisine v. United States
467:United States v. Emerson
443:Restrains Future Contact
267:United States portal
182:Gun politics in the U.S.
147:Federal Firearms License
112:Campus carry in the U.S.
576:signed into effect the
525:United States vs Chovan
518:United States v. Jardee
503:United States v. Waters
379:§ 921(a)(33)(B)(i)
347:Equal Protection Clause
251:and Law Enforcement Act
234:Sullivan Act (New York)
162:Gun Control Act of 1968
538:United States v. Hayes
493:United States v. Brady
453:
419:
219:Open carry in the U.S.
429:
417:
249:Violent Crime Control
750:Sack, Emily (2005).
382:and has exceptions:
363:1968 Gun Control Act
127:Constitutional carry
18:Lautenberg Amendment
640:. 19 February 2015.
624:"Domestic Violence"
172:Gun law in the U.S.
594:Boyfriend loophole
582:boyfriend loophole
580:. It narrowed the
572:In 2022 President
420:
935:. October 5, 2021
863:, March 26, 2014.
626:. 4 January 2021.
567:domestic violence
301:
300:
16:(Redirected from
1008:
976:The Emerson Case
945:
944:
942:
940:
925:
919:
918:
910:
904:
903:
891:
885:
884:
882:
881:
870:
864:
855:
849:
848:
846:
845:
835:
829:
828:
827:
826:
813:
807:
806:
805:
804:
791:
785:
784:
777:
771:
770:
768:
766:
756:
747:
741:
740:
738:
736:
721:
712:
711:18 USC 922(g)(8)
709:
703:
699:
693:
692:
690:
688:
669:"51 F. 3d 284 -
665:
659:
658:
651:
642:
641:
634:
628:
627:
620:
438:Intimate Partner
381:
339:Frank Lautenberg
332:
330:§ 922(g)(9)
315:
311:
293:
286:
279:
265:
264:
263:
244:Tiahrt Amendment
152:Firearm case law
62:
45:
44:
21:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1005:
981:
980:
954:
949:
948:
938:
936:
927:
926:
922:
911:
907:
892:
888:
879:
877:
872:
871:
867:
856:
852:
843:
841:
837:
836:
832:
824:
822:
815:
814:
810:
802:
800:
793:
792:
788:
779:
778:
774:
764:
762:
754:
748:
744:
734:
732:
723:
722:
715:
710:
706:
700:
696:
686:
684:
683:(51): 284. 1995
667:
666:
662:
653:
652:
645:
636:
635:
631:
622:
621:
617:
612:
604:Gun Control Act
590:
462:
452:
446:
441:
436:
412:
373:
359:
324:
313:
297:
261:
259:
250:
203:
101:
76:
43:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1014:
1004:
1003:
998:
993:
979:
978:
973:
965:
960:
953:
952:External links
950:
947:
946:
920:
905:
886:
865:
850:
830:
808:
786:
772:
742:
713:
704:
694:
660:
643:
629:
614:
613:
611:
608:
607:
606:
601:
596:
589:
586:
511:
510:
500:
461:
458:
430:
411:
408:
407:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
390:
358:
355:
318:104–208 (text)
299:
298:
296:
295:
288:
281:
273:
270:
269:
256:
255:
254:
253:
246:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
211:
206:
199:
194:
189:
184:
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
154:
149:
144:
139:
134:
129:
124:
119:
114:
109:
104:
97:
92:
87:
82:
80:Assault weapon
75:
74:
64:
63:
55:
54:
50:
49:
27:US federal law
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1013:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
988:
986:
977:
974:
972:
969:
966:
964:
961:
959:
956:
955:
934:
930:
924:
916:
909:
901:
897:
890:
875:
869:
862:
860:
854:
840:
834:
820:
819:
812:
798:
797:
796:US v. Emerson
790:
782:
776:
760:
753:
746:
730:
726:
720:
718:
708:
698:
682:
678:
674:
672:
664:
656:
650:
648:
639:
633:
625:
619:
615:
605:
602:
600:
597:
595:
592:
591:
585:
583:
579:
575:
570:
568:
565:
561:
560:
554:
550:
546:
545:
540:
539:
533:
530:
526:
521:
519:
514:
508:
507:ex post facto
504:
501:
498:
497:ex post facto
494:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
485:ex post facto
481:
476:
473:
469:
468:
460:Court history
457:
451:
449:
444:
439:
434:
428:
425:
416:
404:
397:
394:
393:
391:
388:
387:
385:
384:
383:
380:
376:
370:
368:
364:
354:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
322:
319:
312:
306:
294:
289:
287:
282:
280:
275:
274:
272:
271:
268:
258:
257:
252:
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
200:
198:
195:
193:
190:
188:
185:
183:
180:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
138:
135:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
53:United States
52:
51:
47:
46:
41:
37:
33:
19:
937:. Retrieved
933:Congress.gov
932:
923:
908:
899:
889:
878:. Retrieved
876:. 2016-02-22
868:
858:
853:
842:. Retrieved
833:
823:, retrieved
817:
811:
801:, retrieved
795:
789:
775:
763:. Retrieved
758:
745:
733:. Retrieved
728:
707:
697:
685:. Retrieved
680:
676:
670:
663:
632:
618:
571:
557:
542:
536:
534:
527:(2013), the
524:
522:
517:
515:
512:
506:
502:
496:
492:
483:
479:
477:
471:
465:
463:
454:
447:
442:
437:
432:
431:
421:
371:
360:
351:Bill Clinton
304:
302:
131:
71:Amendment II
69:
214:NY SAFE Act
95:Bump stocks
985:Categories
880:2016-06-27
844:2010-03-13
825:2024-02-16
803:2024-04-04
765:25 January
677:OpenJurist
610:References
239:Suppressor
761:(6): 3–30
574:Joe Biden
553:Tennessee
478:The case
375:18 U.S.C.
326:18 U.S.C.
939:April 4,
588:See also
564:reckless
971:archive
783:. 2001.
657:. 2013.
472:Emerson
433:Hearing
357:Summary
310:Pub. L.
861:(2014)
687:19 May
377:
367:felony
328:
316:
755:(PDF)
735:5 Nov
321:(PDF)
941:2024
767:2017
737:2017
729:BATF
689:2020
422:The
303:The
900:NPR
681:F3d
535:In
523:In
987::
931:.
898:.
757:.
727:.
716:^
679:.
675:.
646:^
569:.
323:,
943:.
917:.
902:.
883:.
847:.
769:.
739:.
691:.
673:"
292:e
285:t
278:v
42:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
