Mel Gibson and gun rights

[Hawkmoon]

Was anyone aware of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnqvG95BOqE

[Ben]

I had read something about this a couple of days ago, but still don't know non-MSNBC details. I vaguely recall the domestic violence case, but have no idea if he really smacked a woman around, or if it was a me too kind of thing.

[Mk-211]

There were pictures of her with her front teeth knocked out. That and a recording of him admitting to doing it.

Now with this blowing up, I don't see him getting his right to own a firearm back. It's been over 10 years, he should've just had his lawyer, petition the courts to lessen the offense.

[cordex]

However I may feel about gun laws, I don't see why he should get special treatment just because of his celebrity.

[MechAg94]

There were pictures of her with her front teeth knocked out. That and a recording of him admitting to doing it.

Now with this blowing up, I don't see him getting his right to own a firearm back. It's been over 10 years, he should've just had his lawyer, petition the courts to lessen the offense.

If he actually did that and only got a misdemeanor, then he already got his lawyers to lessen the offense. 

[Mk-211]

True, but as an enhancement to the DV charge, he can't own a firearm.

I think it was written into a bill that congress passed.

[dogmush]

True, but as an enhancement to the DV charge, he can't own a firearm.

I think it was written into a bill that congress passed.

The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968.  Passed in the 1997 Omnibus Appropriations act.  If you are convicted of a misdemeanor DV crime you are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Can be found in law at 18 USC 922(g)

[MechAg94]

That is why I was wondering how Gibson would get his rights restored.  There would need to be a pardon, correct?

[dogmush]

There is a process to have civil rights restored after a felony conviction.  It varies by jurisdiction, but I believe one exists for every state.  There are hoops to jump through, but it's possible.

A frequently litigated issue under § 922(g)(1) is whether a convicted felon is exempt from the prohibitions of the statute because of a post-conviction restoration of civil rights under State law. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), a conviction does not disqualify an individual from possessing firearms if the person convicted "has had civil rights restored." In § 922(g)(1) cases based upon a State felony conviction, courts have uniformly looked to the law of the State where the conviction was obtained to determine whether the defendant's civil rights have been restored and whether such action has nullified the conviction's incidental prohibition on firearms possession. With respect to Federal felony convictions, the Supreme Court declared in Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (1994), that only Federal law can nullify the effect of the conviction through expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights. This is so, the Court ruled, even though there is no Federal procedure for restoring the civil rights of Federal felons.

In United States v. Ramos, 961 F.2d 1003, 1009 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 113 S. Ct. 364 (1992), the court held that the term "restored" in § 921(a)(20) requires the State to make an "individualized official judgment" that the defendant should be excepted from the prohibitions of § 922(g)(1). The Criminal Division takes the position that where State law contains any provision purporting to restore civil rights -- either upon application by the defendant or automatically upon the completion of a sentence -- it should be given effect. It is not necessary that the State issue an individualized certificate reflecting the judgment of State officials regarding an individual defendant. The Ramos case should be limited to its unique facts and not extended in attempts to nullify the effect of other State schemes for civil rights restoration. A State restoration document that is absolute on its face should disqualify the affected State felon from prosecution under §  922(g)(1) unless the facts of the case strongly support a finding that the felon had actual notice of his/her continuing State firearms disability despite the terms of the restoration document.

Note: the above is refering to 18USC 922(g)1, which is a felon prohibited person, but should also apply to 18 USC 922(g) 9 which is the misdemeanor DV part.

[Ben]

Sort of a tangent, and firstly, if someone beats a woman there should be consequences. However, if it, or something, is classified as a misdemeanor, should people lose constitutional rights over it?

If the girlfriend beating is classified as a felony, of course. However, and without defending a women beater, if it's a misdemeanor, isn't that a slippery slope to say, shoplifting losing you your 2A or other constitutional rights?

I suppose this also ties into similar debates we have had here about felons, once serving their sentences, having their rights restored.

[MechAg94]

Sort of a tangent, and firstly, if someone beats a woman there should be consequences. However, if it, or something, is classified as a misdemeanor, should people lose constitutional rights over it?

If the girlfriend beating is classified as a felony, of course. However, and without defending a women beater, if it's a misdemeanor, isn't that a slippery slope to say, shoplifting losing you your 2A or other constitutional rights?

I suppose this also ties into similar debates we have had here about felons, once serving their sentences, having their rights restored.

It was the wrong answer to courts letting violent criminals off with misdemeanors.  That should have been the deciding line, not stretching loss of rights down into misdemeanors. 

[dogmush]

It was the wrong answer to courts letting violent criminals off with misdemeanors.  That should have been the deciding line, not stretching loss of rights down into misdemeanors.

I'm not sure we did, but I'll admit that this is not my area of expertise.  I asked AI what misdemeanor DV crimes were and got this back:

In the United States, misdemeanor domestic violence typically involves less severe offenses compared to felony charges, though classifications can vary by state. Generally, these crimes involve acts of violence or threats against a family or household member, such as a spouse, partner, child, or cohabitant. Here’s a breakdown of what might be classified as misdemeanor domestic violence:

Simple Assault: This includes minor physical attacks, like pushing, slapping, or grabbing, that don’t result in serious injury. For example, a shove during an argument that doesn’t require medical attention could fall under this category.

Battery: Physical contact that’s intentional and unlawful, such as hitting or kicking, but again, without causing significant harm. States often define this as "unwanted touching" with varying thresholds for severity.

Threats or Harassment: Verbal threats of violence or persistent harassing behavior (like repeated yelling or intimidation) can be misdemeanor-level if they don’t escalate to a credible, immediate danger.

Violation of a Protective Order: Ignoring a restraining order’s terms—like contacting the protected person—can be a misdemeanor, though repeat offenses might bump it to a felony.

Property Damage: Minor destruction of shared or personal property (e.g., breaking a phone or smashing a dish) in a domestic dispute might be charged as a misdemeanor.

The key difference between misdemeanor and felony domestic violence often hinges on factors like the degree of injury, use of a weapon, or prior criminal history. For instance, choking or using a knife would likely elevate the charge to a felony. Penalties for misdemeanors typically include fines, jail time up to one year, probation, or mandatory counseling, but specifics depend on local laws.
Each state has its own statutes, so what’s a misdemeanor in one place (say, California) might differ slightly in another (like Texas). If you’re curious about a specific state, I can dig deeper into its laws for you. Which state are you interested in, if any?

Some of those maybe should be felonies?  I dunno.  The property damage one I'm probably falling on shouldn't result in loss of civil rights.  If you get in an argument and punch your wall should you lose civil rights? 

Being in the Military I can tell you scores of stories that are basically: Guy dates Stripper, Stripper is crazy and wily; knows this law, they get in knock down drag out fights where she abuses guy, guy is terrified of asking for help because if she claims DV his career is done.

[Hawkmoon]

There is a process to have civil rights restored after a felony conviction.  It varies by jurisdiction, but I believe one exists for every state.  There are hoops to jump through, but it's possible.

Note: the above is refering to 18USC 922(g)1, which is a felon prohibited person, but should also apply to 18 USC 922(g) 9 which is the misdemeanor DV part.

State courts can restore gun rights lost due to state convictions. There is a separate process in federal law for restoring guns rights lost due to federal offenses. However, the federal process has not been funded for many years.

The attorney who was fired worked in the DOJ pardons office, so it appears someone wanted to give Gibson a pardon. I don't know if the President can grant pardons for state offenses. At least one attorney thinks not: https://www.kurtbennett.com/blog/2025/01/can-the-president-pardon-you-for-state-level-offenses/

[dogmush]

Right,  but in the context of this conversation is there such a crime as a Federal DV Misdemeanor?  There could be, but I've never heard of it.  UCMJ maybe?

[Hawkmoon]

Right,  but in the context of this conversation is there such a crime as a Federal DV Misdemeanor?  There could be, but I've never heard of it.  UCMJ maybe?

I don't know, that's what puzzles me. Why would the federal DOJ pardons office be involved in why was most likely a state-level DV conviction?