The Lautenberg Ammendment and prohibited persons

[IMSmitty]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I had a physical altercation with my sisters' boyfriend almost 10 years ago. My sister got involved and I ended up being charged with 1 battery and 1 battery domestic, FL statute 784.03(1).

My disposition is guilty of battery, FL statute 784.03(1). The arrest mentions "domestic," but the disposition does not. It only says "battery." Also, the statute 784.03 doesn't mention "domestic" violence at all. Rather, FL statutes 741.28-741.31 & 784.046, reference domestic violence, and none of these statutes are referenced on the arrest report or disposition.

So, am I correct in stating that I only have a battery charge, and not a "domestic" battery charge?

Also, the Lautenberg ammendment refers to a "prohibited person" being an offender who is guilty of "domestic violence" against a spouse/parent/ or child. It doesn't reference a sibling, and I haven't been charged with "domestic violence" according to the statutes I have been convicted of.

I ask because I am hoping to purchase a firearm and maybe even get my concealed carry permit. Please tell me what you think. Thanks!

 

[xylene]

I strongly suggest you hire a lawyer.

Given the current climate this is not something you want left to conjecture.

Personally, it appears you are a prohibited person, but I don't want to make a case convincing you, as you seem to have your mind made up you are ok to go despite clearly having a domestic violence conviction.

 

[IMSmitty]

I agree with part of your statement. Yes, I am seeking legal help. I do disagree with my "clearly" having a domestic violence charge. Given the statute I was charged with and the disposition only stating "battery." Also, I contacted the state attorneys office in that county, and they verified that it is only a "battery" charge. But thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Ohiogal]

I agree with part of your statement. Yes, I am seeking legal help. I do disagree with my "clearly" having a domestic violence charge. Given the statue I was charged with and the disposition only stating "battery." Also, I contacted the state attorneys office in that county, and they verified that it is only a "battery" charge. But thanks for your thoughts.

You might want to be completely certain because the Scotus decision today.

 

[IMSmitty]

Today the scotus simply upheld the current lautenburg amendment, and expanded the reach of the amendment to include "reckless" convictions. Still pertaining to one's spouse/child/parent. I believe if I was guilty of domestic violence then that is what I would have been convicted of during my final disposition. But, I agree that I need to be absolutely sure, and am seeking legal counsel for verification.