Police With Domestic-Violence History Lose Guns

LEGISLATION TO BAR domestic-violence offenders from owning guns failed to include an exception for police officers and military personnel because of legislative maneuvering by a gun-control foe.

WASHINGTON - A new federal gun-control law is forcing law-enforcement agencies around the country to search for officers who may lose their right to carry firearms because they have committed domestic-violence offenses.

The law passed in August amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 and bans possession of firearms or ammunition by people with misdemeanor domestic-violence convictions.

Sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., it was designed to close a loophole in that 1968 law, which prohibits people with felonies from carrying guns. The loophole is that in most states, domestic violence is a misdemeanor, not a felony subject to the old law. And even where it is considered a felony, plea bargains have frequently reduced it to a misdemeanor.

A move to exempt law-enforcement officers and military personnel was quashed shortly before the measure was approved as part of the budget bill. It became effective Sept. 30.

Police officers and military personnel are especially concerned about the law, which is retroactive.

State and local law-enforcement agencies around the country were advised by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms last month that any personnel who had committed such an offense should be disarmed immediately.

"I'm sure there are police agencies here with people who have had domestic quarrels, and they're going to run into a serious problem with this," said 1st Sgt. Bernie Shaw, who heads the Maryland State Police firearms-licensing unit.

Perhaps the most complicated issues involve the 1.2 million people who serve in the armed forces. The Pentagon and the Justice Department are discussing how the law would affect military personnel.

The Defense Department is waiting to issue new regulations "until we figure out how strictly they will interpret the law," said Maj. Monica Aloisio, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Lost in legislation

When the proposal was endorsed by President Clinton and adopted by the Senate 97-2, the question of how the measure might affect police officers and other government employees never came up.

Just days before Congress was to recess, the gun-control measure was added to a key appropriations bill that had to be enacted to prevent a government shutdown.

Rep. Robert Barr Jr., R-Ga., a prominent opponent of gun-control measures, led a last-ditch effort to modify the Lautenberg measure in ways that would have greatly weakened it, Lautenberg said. One proposal, for example, dropped language specifically covering child abusers.

Most of Barr's efforts were thwarted, but in the hours just before the big appropriations bill was finally passed he and his allies did work some changes - including the one that removed the official-use exception.

Barr now says he cannot recall who proposed lifting the exception.

A leading Democratic strategist said, "They were threatening to hold up the whole show on this and we had to swallow it or risk seeing the whole appropriation's bill crash. Now it looks like it was intended to undermine the bill all along."

The Clinton administration insists that Barr must now fix the problem. "We are enforcing the law as it is written," said Rahm Emanuel, senior adviser to the president.

Barr said that the only way to fix the law is to make it apply just to future offenses, so that anyone, government official or not, who had committed a domestic-violence crime in the past could legally possess a firearm.

Police departments confused

Many state and local law-enforcement officials say they don't know how many officers might be affected, who will enforce the order or whether the law is constitutional.

"Are federal agents going to come and take our officers' guns and ammunition, or is this a DPS responsibility?" said Laureen Chernow, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety in Austin.

"We're required to carry a gun 24 hours a day," said Sgt. Bill Clayton of Denver's Police Protective Association, a union that represents 1,426 officers. If officers can't carry guns, he said, "our people will lose their jobs."

In Denver, two officers have been reassigned to desk duty because of the law.

In Los Angeles, five members of the Sheriff's Department have lost their weapons for the same reason, and they are working in jobs usually reserved for civilians.

The National Rifle Association has heard from departments in Ohio, Vermont and elsewhere that are worried about losing officers because of the law. Some court cases already have been filed, said NRA spokeswoman Mary Sue Faulkner.

Checking on Seattle-area police

In the Seattle area, law-enforcement agencies are trying to determine how the revision affects them. Legal advisers and internal investigators with the King County Police are going through police files to see if any of their officers have a domestic-violence conviction, said King County Police spokesman Jerrell Wills.

"We're going to have to ultimately look through everyone's background for a criminal check to see if there's something in their distant past that we're not aware of," Wills said.

With about 600 officers, it could take months for the background checks to be completed, Wills said.

The Seattle Police Department said no one in the 1,200-officer force should be affected by the revision.

Advocates for victims of domestic abuse said they find the complaints coming from police officers a bit mind-boggling.

"They're saying, in so many words, that this is not a crime," said Joan Meier, director of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Project at George Washington University Law School.

"People die because of domestic violence all the time. I think police officers should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us," she said.

Compiled from reports by The Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, Knight-Ridder Newspapers and Seattle Times staff reporter Janet I-Chin Tu.