This is a laugh I got off the BATF Website while researching:

Q2) What is the effective date of this disability? (Lautenberg - "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence")

The law was effective September 30, 1996. However, the prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the law's effective date. [18 U. S. C. 922( g)( 9), 27 CFR 178.32( a)( 9)]

(Q3) Does application of the law to persons convicted prior to the law's effective date violate constitutional rights?

No. This provision is not being applied retroactively or in violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. This is because the law does not impose additional punishment upon persons convicted prior to the effective date, but merely regulates the future possession of firearms on or after the effective date. The provision is not retroactive merely because the person's conviction occurred prior to the effective date. [18 U. S. C. 922( g)( 9), 27 CFR 178.32( a)( 9)]

So according to BATF:

Loss of a "civil right" (prohibition) is not an "additional punishment" (retroactively applied). So the loss of liberty (a.k.a. - incarceration in a Federal penitentiary) is not a punishment. Okay!

Under this logic, Congress could pass a law providing for the arrest and indefinite detention of any person ever convicted of anything, without recourse to the 5th Amendment's "right to a speedy and public trial" simply because such a law "merely regulates the future" right of due process "on or after the effective date".

"Beam me up, Scotty! There is no sign of intelligent life on this planet!"

In the BATF's world - "civil rights" are meaningless, therefore their loss is not a punishment. This must be "Planet of the Apes"!

Someone must challenge this provision of Lautenberg.

Keep the Faith,

Neal