I have been concerned for some time that lawyers are unwittingly subjecting their clients charged with domestic violence to serious consequences which are far beyond those about which they are telling their clients.  I heard about this first in a CLE program about gun laws, but the focus of that program was not domestic violence clients, so not much was made of it.

 I have seen many cases where a man is charged with domestic violence and the lawyer negotiates a suspended sentence or probation upon a guilty plea or entry of a protective order and feels that they have done well for the client.  The client leaves the courtroom feeling that he must behave for the probation period — usually one year — or comply with the terms of the protective order — and everything will be all right.

 The problem is that the conviction or order (if written as described in the statute below) carries with it under federal law — and perhaps under state laws in some jurisdictions — a permanent bar to possessing a firearm.  And, of course, for the man to thereafter go hunting is a felony, because he lost his right to possess a firearm of any kind.  He is almost certainly committing the felony unwittingly because his lawyer didn’t tell him, usually because the lawyer didn’t know.

 Here is the federal statute.  Note that not only conviction of domestic violence carries this consequence, but an order restraining the man from stalking, harassing, or threatening an intimate partner or child of an intimate partner does if the order includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate or her child, or explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or her child.  Such protective orders are rather common, to my observation.

 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(8) and (9)

 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person-

*   *   *

(8) who is subject to a court order that-

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The question that jumps out to me is how in the world a man is supposed to know this unless his lawyer tells him.  And the second even greater question is shouldn’t that cause lawyers to advise against a guilty plea or entry of such an order as a plea agreement unless there is such an iron clad case that the man is doomed anyway.  But then the lawyer should advise the man that he may not ever again possess a gun.

Of course, the same is true if the person charged is a woman.

I haven’t heard of any cases brought against lawyers on this yet, but it seems to me that it is legal malpractice to work out a plea bargain for a man charged with domestic violence or threatening his girl friend or wife without first telling him of the consequential loss of right to possess a firearm ever again.  What are the damages for such a gaffe?  Ask a man who is a devoted hunter and you will get an earful.

I also feel that this is serious enough and the obviousness of the ignorance of almost every person who comes before the court on such a charge, that the judges should caution a person proposing entering into such a plea bargain about the loss of right to possess a gun.

I suggest that the first thing lawyers should do after reading this is research their files and their memories for the clients whom they have represented in such circumstances who finished with convictions or protective orders that fit the terms of the federal statute and advise them that they may not possess firearms ever again unless some judicial act reinstates their rights to do so.

Thanks to Category 4 for constructing this wonderful web site, www.LawyerLowe.com.

This web site was designed, constructed, tweaked to my every whim, and completed on time with a good sense of humor, to boot, by the folks at Category4, One SNL Plaza,
Suite 103, Charlottesville, VA 22902.  434-296-9963.  www.category4.com

In particular, Elizabeth Sara was one of the primary geniuses at work on the web site. She was fabulous!

Category4 also hosts my e-mail server flawlessly and inexpensively.

–John Lowe

 I had two concurrent problems that plagued me — (1) too many paper files stuffed with copies of stuff I probably would never need but couldn’t afford to just discard and (2) a desire to keep copies of documents like articles, ads, stories, reports, transmittal letters, and the like without generating more paper files.  I had owned a Canon 7000 fax/sheet copier for about ten years and it had been a dream, but was limited in not being able to do flat copying or scanning.  So I contacted Ameritel, who had originally sold it to me and who, in theory, serviced it (“in theory” because in ten years I had never had a lick of trouble requiring servicing).  They provided the answer.

 The answer was a Canon desktop Image Runner Model IR1025iF scanner, fax, printer, and sheet/flat copier machine (actually my version is last year’s model — this one is improved to include color scanning).  It has changed my life.  I have no economic connection with Canon, Ameritel, or anyone working there.  But this news is too good not to share.

 Look at  www.canonusa.com and enter in the search box on the home page “1025iF.”

 The cost was very manageable and cost efficient.  The whole unit delivered and set up costs under $1,850.00.  It uses ordinary copy paper and will copy 50 pages at a time, can serve as a printer, will send and receive faxes, can scan up to 50 pages at a time to your computer, and probably does a bunch of things I haven’t even found out about yet.  It is a fabulous machine.

 I don’t know whether it is the best buy for a medium to large law firm, but for a solo practitioner like me, or perhaps a two or three lawyer firm, it is perfect.

 I cannot say enough good things about John Maher the salesman of Ameritel and it is my understanding that he and his colleagues will call on any law firm or lawyer anywhere in the tri-sate area (VA, MD, DC) — even central and perhaps also other parts of Virginia.  He can tell you about that when you call if you are interested.

 Contact information: John Maher 240-832-0262C          

www.ameritelcorporation.com

 So, that is my gift to you, today.

 Edgar S. Robb, Private Investigator

 Ed Robb is a former FBI Senior Agent who specialized in FBI undercover operations. He created and directed the original FBI undercover investigation designed to penetrate organized crime and narcotic activities. 

Considered by his fellow FBI agents to be the best undercover agent in FBI history, Ed is truly an American hero.

He was winner of the coveted Attorney General’s Award July 27, 1988, as the top FBI agent in the Bureau that year. 

Now working as a private investigator on civil and criminal cases in Virginia with the ability to take cases in West Virginia, the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, Ed Robb has a nationwide network of former and retired FBI agents to call upon for assistance. 

To contact Ed Robb:

Phone 1-540-456-8347 Home Office or

Phone 1-540-470-0821 Cell Phone or

E-mail Ed Robb at edacso@aol.com

–John Lowe (To call me and ask questions about Ed, phone 301-320-3300)