There’s really no circumstance where I think a lifetime ban on a fundamental right should be constitutional for a misdemeanor conviction, but one of the gravest outrages perpetrated by the federal courts is allowing the ex-post-facto nature of the Lautenberg Amendment to stand. John Richardson has a good example in regards to why. As far as I know, there’s never been any direct Supreme Court ruling on the ex-post facto issue in regards to Lautenberg, but it seems pretty clear to me that stripping a constitutional right post-conviction, without any further due process, ought to be a violation. One might argue that you get around the ex-post facto issue by virtue of the fact that an action is required, namely gun possession with a misdemeanor DV conviction post the date of the act, but when the act of possession is protected by the Constitution, it’s hard to see how that doesn’t amount to punishment after the fact.
One thought on “Lautenberg and Ex-Post Facto”
Comments are closed.
“As far as I know, there’s never been any direct Supreme Court ruling on the ex-post facto issue in regards to Lautenberg, but it seems pretty clear to me that stripping a constitutional right post-conviction, without any further due process, ought to be a violation.”
Unfortunately the case law out there that could provide some guidance is not good. It revolves around sex offenders and the courts have upheld the registries. Now, the good part is they upheld the registries as something that was not a punishment.
Restricting the practice of a right can be seen as a punishment.