Lautenberg Amendment vs. Sexual Assault

2015-02-03T21:14:45-05:00

We know the Lautenberg Amendment prevents a service member convicted of domestic violence from being able to own and use a fire arm - essentially removing them from service.

However, there is a recent push for JAG to identify individuals convicted of sexual assault or related offense and noting those individuals to HRC. Those individuals will now have a mark on their records, but allowed to serve on a case-by-case basis.

My question is, shouldn't domestic violence and sexual assault, at the very least, be treated in the same fashion? There is a zero tolerance policy for those who fall under the Lautenberg Amendment. Why not a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment and assault?

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Feb 3 at 2015 9:16 PM

2015-02-03T21:16:28-05:00

Assault yes, without question in my mind. Harassment, that is a bit of a shady/slippery slope area since harassment is often not very narrowly defined.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 3 at 2015 9:24 PM

2015-02-03T21:24:31-05:00

Former gun dealer here.

The biggest thing that prevents someone from owning/possessing a firearm is a Felony Conviction or a conviction of a crime in which they could serve more than 1 year in prison.

Congress added other crimes, such as Domestic Violence. (Lautenberg Amendment)

Some crimes, like Assault & Sexual Harassment however do not meet the requirements to prohibit possession of a firearm.

Below is an ATF 4473 (the form used to transfer a Firearm under federal law). It isn't an all inclusive list, but it's pretty accurate.

https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Response by SPC Dylan Torres made Feb 4 at 2015 12:06 PM

2015-02-04T12:06:05-05:00

I recently became a vet and in my opinion SA and DV should be treated the same essentially it is an act off domestic violence and is equally detrimental to the military. It should be treated with more severe consequences then essentially a slap on the wrist.