2006 Repeal of section 658 of Public Law 104-208, ...
«
»
Image 1 of 4


Author: Chris Nolan
Started: September 24, 2005, 5:42:56 pm
Target: United States Congress
Supporters:

447
Goal:

1,000
Goal Progress:

45% Complete
Status

Closed
This petition is electronically signed and submitted to Congress by the people of the United States Of America.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Peoples' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS:

(1) Domestic Violence remains a very serious problem in the United States. It is a dangerous crime and should be punished as such, including, where appropriate, as a felony.

(2) Many States have classified Domestic Violence crimes as misdemeanors, others as felonies. States are the proper authority, rather than the Federal Government, to classify Domestic Violence offenses.

(3) Where appropriate, States should classify Domestic Violence offenses as a felony.

(4) Section 658 of Public Law 104-208, commonly referred to as the Lautenberg amendment, oversteps Federal authority, violating States' rights, because no nexus has been shown to exist between Domestic Violence and interstate commerce.

(5) The Lautenberg amendment does not deal with a subject delegated to Congress under article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States and is therefore unconstitutional under the tenth amendment to the Constitution, as interpreted by United States v. Lopez.

(6) The Lautenberg amendment oversteps Congress's power to regulate commerce as delineated by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

(7) Some of the strictest gun control laws are found in cities where the number of incidents of guns being used in violent crimes is the highest. Therefore, the Lautenberg amendment does not reduce incidents of domestic violence.

(8) State and Federal judges already have the power to deny persons convicted of misdemeanors the right to possess firearms as a condition of probation or parole.

(9) The Lautenberg amendment is an unfunded Federal mandate because States are liable for the costs of monitoring those citizens who have been banned for life from owning a firearm. Many times this lifetime ban is a result of a misdemeanor, not a felony.

(10) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 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 of the Act.

(11) Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year. Of these self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual assault.

(12) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 will, if allowed to stand, result in the disarming of millions of citizens, including women, on account of misdemeanor offenses which, in many cases, were committed long before the effective date of that Act.

(13) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 will, in many cases, disarm battered women who need access to firearms in order to protect themselves from their battering spouses as well as from common criminals.

(14) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 will, if allowed to stand, impose a lifetime gun ban on persons who committed acts so minor that they were not even entitled to a jury trial prior to conviction.

(15) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208, will, if allowed to stand, result in the disarming and dismissal of a significant number of law enforcement officers and American servicemen, on account of misdemeanors, which in many cases, were committed long before the effective date of that Act.

(16) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 ignores the real problem surrounding domestic violence in that truly violent offenders are allowed to plea-bargain down to misdemeanors.

(b) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this Act to restore States' rights, the tenth amendment, and second amendment freedoms.

SEC. 3. REPEALER.

Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 is repealed and is null and void as if it had not been enacted, and all provisions of law amended by such section are restored as if section 658 had not been enacted.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect as if included in the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208. Any liability, penalty, or forfeiture incurred by any person by reason of the application of any amendment made by section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion of Public Law 104-208 is hereby extinguished, and any action or prosecution for the enforcement of any such liability, penalty, or forfeiture shall not be sustained.

(BY SIGNING THIS PETITION YOU AGREE THAT NO INFORMATION WILL BE SHARED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS PETITION) a1580082

Added On (2007-05-09):

I have chosen to close this Petition and send the Signatures I have to my Congress. If anyone wishes to sponsor their own petition, I will gladly spread the word. I can be emailed through this petition. Thank You all who have signed. I had hoped to get a lot more signatures in the 2 Years I ran this Petition.

Added On (2007-08-04):

As I am still getting signatures, I will postpone sending this petition in for a while longer.

Added On (2008-04-18):

CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED CLOSED




Acne Life Insurance Death Insurance Bextra Asbestos Car Insurance Dental Plans 0 Private Jets Debt Consolidation credit Cards Rewards Cards Equity Loans Equity Line credit Loans Mortgages Pay Day Loans Cash Advance 0 Bankruptcy Reduce Debt Refinance Jet Charter Vioxx Wrongful death Legal Advice Taxes Investing Bonds 0 Online Trading IRA Rollover Refinance Quotes Adult Education Distance Learning Alcohol Treatment Rehab Drug Rehab Spyware Cell Phone Plans 0 Calling Cards VOIP Weight Loss Canadian Pharmacy Depression Spam Filter Lasik Facelift Teeth Whitening Annuity 0 Anti Virus Protection Adult Diaper Free credit Report credit Score Satellite Anti Spam Software Dedicated Hosting Domain Name Need Money Bachelor Degree 0 Master Degree Doctorate Degree Work at Home Quick Book Extra Money Eloan Malpractice Lawyer Lenox China Cancer Payperclick 0 Personal Injury Attorney Lexington Law Video Conferencing Transfer Money Windstar Cruise Casinos Online Term Life Online Banking Borrow Money Low Interest credit Cards 0 Personal Domain Name Cellular Phone Rental Internet Broker Trans Union Cheap Hosting University Degrees Online Online Marketing Consolidate Helpdesk Software Web Host 0 Homeowner's Insurance Yellow Page Advertising Travel Insurance Register Domain credit Counseling Email Hosting Business credit Consumer credit Blue Cross Laptop Computer
Sign this Petition!    Spread the Word!



Discussion Forum
View all Topics Start a New Topic
Created April 23, 2009, 7:10:12 am. 1 comments
Last post by Guest_James_*
Posted April 23, 2009, 7:10:12 am


Signatures
James Ludolph said 04/16/08, 11:21 am (verified)
This is a horrible law. I am amazed that 9 of the 11 circuit courts have upheld it. Only 1 the 4th circuit is examined the grammar which was used to write the law. Hopefully the Supreme court will weigh in on the fact that it is unconstitutional (US v. Hayes) I plead guilty to M3 simple assault. which in Pennsylvania is a argument or scuffle between consenting parties. The definition said nothing about domestic violence with in the crimes code. I was never told that I had just surrender my 2nd amendment rights until I went to apply for a carry permit 5 years later. In fact the District attorney and my own attorney explained to me that it was just a matter of paying a fine. I am horrified as I spent 10 years in the military and now work for the Department of Defense as a civilian employee. What makes it worse is that it is retro active to anyone who before 96 plead guilty to any other crime that involves family members. If that is not screwed up what is? Gee why isn\'t the ACLU up in arms over this? I wonder...
#447

j.d. wolf said 04/13/08, 2:47 pm (verified)
No misdemeanor conviction of any kind, should ever restrict anyone's constitutional right to own firearms.
#446

Tim Steers said 04/03/08, 3:49 pm (verified)
My gun is on hold with my FFL until the justice dept. get my court transcripts from1990 which had nothing to do with Domestic Violense and can't give me a time when this should accure. So there is no limitations how long they can hold your Gun while you wait?
#445

Frank said 03/31/08, 3:47 pm (verified)
Soldiers are effected and good lawmen
#444

William McLelland said 03/31/08, 7:02 am (verified)
I am a retired United Airlines Captain. Call 911 after you protect yourself!
#443

scott kielian said 03/25/08, 10:06 pm (verified)
I support this petition.
#442

William G Sims said 03/20/08, 12:36 pm (verified)
I am an honorablly discharged vetran who waived my right to trial and pleaded guilty to a misdemnour domestic charge and have lost my civil liberties because of THIS? I wish I would have not served one day in the defense of our country . So much for freedom!
#441

Kevin Bunn said 03/17/08, 12:32 am (verified)
I support this petition.
#440

Kelly Bunn said 03/16/08, 10:26 pm (verified)
I support this petition.
#439

Daniel Barton said 03/16/08, 6:19 pm (verified)
I support this petition.
#438

chadwick Van Love said 03/09/08, 10:19 pm (verified)
All I want is a chance to serve my country.
#437

Kevin Molz said 02/23/08, 1:27 pm (verified)
There is no such thing as a constitutional gun control law. Repeal them all!
#436

Jeff Duvall said 02/18/08, 3:21 pm (verified)
I support this petition.
#435

Miles King said 02/14/08, 12:05 am (verified)
I support this petition.
#434

Kelly H. Bielefeldt said 02/08/08, 9:29 pm (verified)
The Lautenberg Amendment is Unconstitutional. This amendment is preventing me from serving my country because of a rediculous gun control law that has no bearing what so ever on military service.
#433

Michael Rios said 02/07/08, 3:34 pm (verified)
I support this petition.
#432

ashley alburtis said 01/30/08, 4:41 am (verified)
I support this petition.
#431

Steven Huidg said 01/30/08, 1:06 am (verified)
This was my ex girlfriends way of keeping me from re-enlisting in the Marine Corps.
#430

Jeff Guetter said 01/27/08, 5:58 pm (verified)
This law has unfairly hurt too many!
#429

Mike Leonetti said 01/24/08, 10:43 am (verified)
I support this petition.
#428