I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3444
To repeal section 658 of Public Law 104–208, commonly referred to as
the Lautenberg amendment.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOVEMBER 18, 1999
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE (for herself, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. WATTS of
Oklahoma, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. COBURN,
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. MCINTOSH, Mr. PAUL, Mr. GOODE, Mr.
HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. CANNON, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr.
SKEEN, Mr. PICKETT, Mr. HILL of Montana, Mr. BATEMAN, Mr. RYUN
of Kansas, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To repeal section 658 of Public Law 104–208, commonly
referred to as the Lautenberg amendment.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘States’ Rights and Sec-
ond and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1999’’.
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 Vio-
lence 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, com-
monly 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 Con-
stitution.
(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 re-
duce 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 proba-
tion 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 con-
stitutional 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 them-
selves against sexual assault.
(12) Section 658 of the Treasury-Postal portion
of Public Law 104–208 will, if allowed to stand, re-
sult in the disarming of millions of citizens, includ-
ing 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, im-
pose 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, re-
sult in the disarming and dismissal of a significant
number of law enforcement officers and American
servicemen, on account of misdemeanors, which in