Lautenberg Amendment: Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Gun Ban

The Lautenberg Amendment is a 1996 federal law, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), that permanently bars anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition.¹ Before it passed, federal firearms prohibitions focused almost entirely on felonies, so a person convicted of a violent misdemeanor against a family member could still legally buy and keep guns. The ban has no carve-out for police or military personnel, and it reaches convictions from before 1996.

Which Convictions Trigger the Ban

Not every misdemeanor counts. The conviction must meet a federal definition regardless of what the offense is called under state law. Two elements have to be present: the offense must be classified as a misdemeanor under federal, state, tribal, or local law, and it must involve the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, against someone in a qualifying domestic relationship.²

The Supreme Court has read “physical force” broadly. In United States v. Castleman, the Court held that even offensive touching satisfies the requirement, reasoning that acts which look minor in isolation take on a different character when one intimate partner commits them against another.³ Two years later, in Voisine v. United States, the Court held that reckless conduct qualifies too, because a person who recklessly causes physical harm has “used” force within the meaning of the statute.⁴ Between the two decisions, a wide range of assault and battery convictions can pull someone into the ban.

A conviction only counts if the defendant received baseline procedural protections. The defendant must have been represented by counsel or knowingly waived that right, and if entitled to a jury trial under the law of the jurisdiction, must have had one or knowingly waived it.² Without those protections, the conviction cannot serve as the basis for the firearms ban.

Which Relationships Count

Federal law lists the specific relationships that make a conviction “domestic.” The statute covers offenses against a current or former spouse, a parent or guardian of the victim, a person who shares a child with the victim, and a person who lives with or has lived with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian. It also reaches anyone “similarly situated” to a spouse, parent, or guardian, which gives courts room to include common-law marriages and long-term domestic partnerships.² Length of the relationship and shared financial responsibilities are among the factors federal authorities weigh when evaluating cohabitation.

For years, dating partners who had never lived together or shared a child fell outside this list. That gap became known as the “boyfriend loophole.”

The 2022 Dating Partner Expansion

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, signed in June 2022, added “a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim” to the list.² Federal law defines a dating relationship as a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, judged by its length, its nature, and how frequently the individuals interacted. Casual acquaintances and ordinary socializing in business or social settings do not count.⁵

What the Ban Actually Prohibits

The prohibition covers possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition that has moved through interstate or foreign commerce.¹ Because virtually every commercially manufactured firearm and round of ammunition has crossed state lines, that interstate element is almost always satisfied. A single loose round triggers the same federal prohibition as a rifle.

Possession under federal law reaches beyond physically holding a weapon. Constructive possession occurs when a person has the ability and intent to control a firearm without touching it. A gun stored in a shared home or a locked car can lead to a federal charge if the prohibited person had access. Living in a household where someone else keeps firearms carries real risk.

Penalties for Violations

Violating the ban is a federal felony. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act raised the maximum prison sentence from 10 years to 15.⁶ Fines for an individual can reach $250,000 under the general federal sentencing provisions.⁷

Federal prosecutors must prove the defendant knew they possessed a firearm and knew they fell into a prohibited category. The Supreme Court set that rule in Rehaif v. United States, holding that “knowingly” in the penalty statute applies to both the act of possession and the defendant’s awareness of prohibited status.⁸ Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but the government cannot convict someone who genuinely did not know their prior conviction made them a prohibited person.

No Exception for Police or Military

Most federal firearm prohibitions include a carve-out for government employees acting in their official capacity under 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1). The Lautenberg Amendment removes that exception. The government-use exemption does not apply to the § 922(g)(9) misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition.⁹

The practical result is career-ending. A police officer who cannot carry a firearm cannot perform the core functions of the job. Departments nearly always terminate or reassign officers in this position, and there is no federal workaround. The same applies to corrections officers, federal agents, and any position where a weapon is a job requirement.

Active-duty military members face the same problem. The Department of Defense requires personnel to complete DD Form 2760, certifying eligibility to possess firearms and ammunition under the Lautenberg Amendment. Completion is mandatory, must be returned to a commander or supervisor within 10 days, and creates a continuing obligation to report any future domestic violence conviction.¹⁰ A service member covered by the prohibition must return government-issued firearms and ammunition and relinquish privately owned firearms. Because they cannot deploy or train with weapons, commands typically reassign or discharge them.

The Ban Reaches Convictions From Before 1996

The Lautenberg Amendment applies to qualifying convictions from any date, including those decades before it took effect. Someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor in 1985 became a prohibited person the moment the law took effect on September 30, 1996. Courts have consistently rejected ex post facto challenges, reasoning that the law does not increase punishment for the original offense but regulates the future act of possessing a firearm.

This retroactive reach is one of the most commonly misunderstood parts of the law. Many people with old misdemeanor convictions bought and kept firearms legally for years before 1996 and may not realize they became prohibited overnight. The Rehaif knowledge requirement offers some protection, since the government must prove awareness of prohibited status, but it does not excuse continued possession once someone learns the law applies to them.⁸

Constitutional Status After Rahimi

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required firearm regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, which prompted challenges to many federal gun laws. In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Court addressed the closely related provision in § 922(g)(8), which bans firearm possession by people subject to a domestic violence restraining order. The Court upheld that ban, holding that “when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”¹¹

Rahimi addressed restraining orders rather than misdemeanor convictions, so it did not directly rule on § 922(g)(9). The logic of the decision, grounded in a long history of laws disarming people who threaten others, supports the Lautenberg Amendment’s constitutionality. If disarmament based on a judicial finding of dangerousness passes muster, disarmament based on an actual criminal conviction with its higher procedural protections stands on at least as firm a foundation.¹¹

Restoring Firearm Rights

Outside a narrow exception for dating-partner convictions, restoring firearm rights after a Lautenberg conviction requires working through the legal system, and none of the paths are quick or cheap.

The Five-Year Exception for Dating Partner Convictions

Dating-partner convictions carry a feature no other qualifying relationship has: a path to automatic restoration after five years. The restoration applies only when all of the following are true:¹²

The person has only one misdemeanor domestic violence conviction involving a dating partner.
At least five years have passed since the date of conviction or the completion of any custodial or supervisory sentence, whichever is later.
The person has not been convicted of another domestic violence misdemeanor involving a dating partner, any other misdemeanor involving force or a deadly weapon, or any offense that would independently disqualify them under federal firearms law.

Any of those additional convictions during or after the five-year period permanently eliminates the restoration. The exception also does not help anyone whose conviction involved a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, parent, guardian, or co-parent, even if the relationship could also be described as a dating relationship.¹²

Expungement, Pardon, or Set-Aside

Federal law provides that a person is no longer “convicted” for purposes of the firearms ban if the conviction has been expunged, set aside, or pardoned, provided the relief does not expressly restrict the person’s ability to possess firearms.² A pardon that says “firearms rights are not restored” will not lift the federal ban. Courts also look at whether other civil rights like voting and jury service have been restored; a failure to regain those foundational rights can block firearm eligibility.

These processes vary widely by jurisdiction. Court filing fees for expungement petitions run from nothing to several hundred dollars, and attorney fees generally range from roughly $500 to $10,000 or more depending on complexity. Success is never guaranteed, and many states impose waiting periods or limit eligibility by offense type.

Federal Relief Under Section 925(c)

Congress created a mechanism at 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) that allows individuals to petition the Attorney General directly for relief from federal firearms disabilities. In practice, Congress has for years declined to fund ATF processing of these applications. As of early 2026, the Department of Justice states that a proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register that would let some people apply for federal relief, but no active application process exists yet.¹³ Until a final rule is published and applications open, this avenue remains closed.

Updating Federal Databases

Even after a successful expungement or pardon, federal background check databases have to reflect the change. If they do not, a purchase will still be denied through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Someone denied can request the specific reason and challenge it with the FBI, which must respond to a reason-for-denial request within five business days and to a formal challenge within 60 calendar days.¹⁴ Submitting fingerprints with the challenge can speed the process.

1
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts
2
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 921 – Definitions
3
Justia. United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014)
4
Legal Information Institute (LII). Voisine v. United States
5
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 921 – Definitions
6
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 924 – Penalties
7
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3571 – Sentence of Fine
8
Supreme Court of the United States. Rehaif v. United States
9
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 925 – Exceptions: Relief from Disabilities
10
Department of Defense. Qualification to Possess Firearms or Ammunition (Gun Control Act and Lautenberg Amendment)
11
Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Rahimi (2024)
12
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Prohibitions
13
U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Firearm Rights Restoration under 18 U.S. Code 925(c)
14
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Requesting Reason for and/or Challenging a NICS-Related Denial