Family Violence Firearm Rights Loss Calculator

The Lautenberg Amendment — § 922(g)(9)

The Lautenberg Amendment was enacted in 1996 as a rider to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which makes it a federal crime — punishable by up to ten years in federal prison under § 924(a)(8) — for any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to possess any firearm or ammunition. The ban is automatic, lifetime, and self-executing — no court has to order it, no certificate is issued, and no notice is required. The moment the conviction becomes final (or, in Texas, the moment the court enters an art. 42.013 affirmative finding on a deferred adjudication), the federal disability attaches.

The Lautenberg ban applies to all firearms and ammunition — handguns, long guns, antique guns, ammunition. It applies to possession at home, in a vehicle, hunting, target shooting, and inheritance. A person with a § 922(g)(9) disability who keeps Grandpa's deer rifle in the closet is committing a federal felony every day.

What counts as an MCDV

The MCDV definition lives at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). To qualify, the underlying offense must meet four cumulative requirements:

1. Misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law. Felony convictions are covered by the separate § 922(g)(1) lifetime ban.
2. An element of the offense is the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. This is the most-litigated element. The Supreme Court in United States v. Castleman (2014) held that "physical force" in the MCDV context means common-law force — even a slap or push qualifies. Voisine v. United States (2016) clarified that reckless conduct can qualify.
3. The defendant had one of the listed relationships with the victim. Current or former spouse, parent, guardian, person with a shared child, current or former cohabitant as a spouse/parent/guardian, person similarly situated, or — after BSCA 2022 — current or former dating partner.
4. The defendant had counsel and a jury trial right. Or knowingly waived those rights. This is the "procedural" prong of the definition.

The single most-litigated element is force. Texas § 22.01(a)(1) bodily-injury assault clearly meets the force element under Castleman. Texas § 22.01(a)(3) offensive-contact assault has split federal courts — some treat it as MCDV-qualifying, others do not. The Fifth Circuit has not definitively resolved the (a)(3) question.

Deferred adjudication and the federal ban

Texas deferred adjudication on a family-violence offense generally still triggers the federal § 922(g)(9) lifetime ban. The Fifth Circuit's position, reflected in United States v. Cuellar and United States v. Daugherty, is that the federal definition of "conviction" under § 921(a)(20) focuses on the finding of guilt rather than on whether a final judgment was entered. When the defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a Texas family-violence offense and the court enters an art. 42.013 affirmative finding, the finding-plus-plea is enough.

This is one of the most common surprises in criminal defense. A defendant takes a deferred-adjudication plea thinking the offense will "go away" after completion — and then learns years later, when applying for an LTC or trying to buy a hunting rifle, that the federal disability is permanent. The plea-stage analysis must include the federal firearm consequences as a non-negotiable element of the decision.

Texas Penal Code § 46.04(b) — the five-year clock

Texas Penal Code § 46.04(b) imposes a parallel state firearm restriction after any conviction for an offense involving family violence. The statute reads: a person who has been convicted of an offense under Penal Code Title 5 (offenses against the person) that is punishable as a Class A misdemeanor and involves family violence may not possess a firearm before the fifth anniversary of the later of:

1. The date of the person's release from confinement, or
2. The date of the person's release from community supervision, or
3. The date of the person's release from parole.

Two important wrinkles. First, even after the five-year period expires, the person can possess a firearm only at the premises where the person lives — the state restriction has a residence-only post-clock period. Second, § 46.04(b) addresses Class A FV misdemeanors specifically. A felony FV conviction is governed by § 46.04(a), which has its own five-year-plus-residence-only structure. The federal § 922(g)(1) lifetime ban runs alongside both state provisions for any felony.

Protective orders — § 922(g)(8) and § 46.04(c)

An active protective order is a separate federal firearm trigger under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The order must have issued after a hearing (ex parte / temporary orders generally don't qualify under federal law), restrain harassing/stalking/intimate-partner contact, and either include a finding of credible threat or explicitly prohibit use of physical force. The Supreme Court upheld § 922(g)(8) against a Second Amendment challenge in United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024).

Texas Penal Code § 46.04(c) imposes a parallel state ban during the pendency of any active protective order issued under Family Code ch. 85. Both bans run only during the order's pendency — once the order expires or is dissolved, both federal and state firearm rights restore automatically (assuming no other triggering disability remains).

Dating partners and the BSCA 2022 expansion

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, signed June 25, 2022, amended § 921(a)(33)(A) to include "current or former dating partner" in the MCDV definition — closing what was widely called the "boyfriend loophole." The amendment is prospective: it applies to offenses committed on or after June 25, 2022. For offenses committed before that date against a non-spouse, non-cohabitant, non-shared-child dating partner, the pre-amendment definition controls, and the MCDV trigger does not attach.

The BSCA also created a narrow restoration pathway specifically for first-time dating-partner MCDV convictions. Under § 921(a)(33)(C)(iii), a defendant convicted of a first dating-partner MCDV may regain federal firearm rights after five years if (a) the defendant has not been convicted of any additional misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, any felony, or any misdemeanor with active suspension; and (b) the defendant has been pardoned, had the conviction expunged or set aside, or had civil rights restored.

Restoration pathways: pardon, set-aside, sealing

Federal § 925(c) restoration — effectively unavailable

The federal restoration program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) was defunded by Congress in 1992 and has remained defunded every year since. ATF cannot process applications. Even though the statute formally exists, the practical answer is no.

Full Texas governor's pardon — narrow but possible

A full pardon issued by the Texas governor, on recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, can restore state firearm rights and — if the pardon language explicitly removes all firearm disabilities under federal law — may lift the federal § 922(g)(9) disability under § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). Pardons are rare and the process takes years.

State expunction — usually unavailable for FV convictions

A successful expunction under Code of Criminal Procedure ch. 55 removes the conviction entirely and, federally, eliminates the predicate for § 922(g)(9). But expunction is unavailable for any case that proceeded to conviction, and most FV pleas produce a conviction. Pretrial diversion that ends in dismissal is a narrow exception.

State non-disclosure / sealing — does not lift federal ban

Government Code ch. 411 sealing limits public access to the record but does not vacate the conviction. The federal MCDV predicate remains intact. Non-disclosure does not restore federal firearm rights.

Set-aside under art. 42A.111 (post-deferred)

If a defendant successfully completes deferred adjudication, the court can enter a set-aside under art. 42A.111. The Fifth Circuit has not consistently held that an art. 42A.111 set-aside removes the federal MCDV predicate — counsel should not assume it does without specific authority.

BSCA five-year dating-partner restoration

For BSCA-era (post-June 25, 2022) first-time dating-partner MCDV convictions only, the five-year pathway under § 921(a)(33)(C)(iii) restores federal firearm rights after the conditions above are met. This is the newest and easiest restoration route — but it has no application to spouse, cohabitant, or shared-child relationships.

Post-Bruen / Rahimi caselaw

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), reset the constitutional framework for Second Amendment challenges to firearm laws. After Bruen, every § 922(g) subsection became subject to renewed challenge. The first significant ruling was United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024), in which the Supreme Court upheld § 922(g)(8) (protective orders) against a facial Second Amendment challenge — holding that disarming individuals subject to credible-threat protective orders is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The status of § 922(g)(9) post-Bruen is unsettled. Circuit courts have split on whether the MCDV ban survives Bruen scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit has not issued a controlling decision on § 922(g)(9)'s facial constitutionality, and as-applied challenges remain available. For now, the ban remains enforced, and federal prosecutors still file § 922(g)(9) cases — but defense counsel should preserve Second Amendment challenges in any prosecution.

What a defense attorney can do at the plea stage

The single most consequential moment in a Texas family-violence case is the plea negotiation. Three strategic moves can preserve firearm rights:

1. Fight the affirmative finding. The art. 42.013 family-violence finding is the federal trigger. Some prosecutors will drop the FV finding in exchange for a Class A plea — meaning the defendant pleads to assault, accepts the misdemeanor record, but avoids the lifetime federal firearm ban. This is the single highest-leverage move in a typical case.
2. Plead to a non-Title-5 offense. If the State will accept a plea to disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, or another non-Title-5 offense, the federal MCDV trigger does not attach. The state § 46.04(b) trigger also doesn't attach because § 46.04(b) is keyed to Title 5 offenses with FV findings.
3. Plead to Class C only. A Class C disposition that does not include the (a)(1) physical-force element may not be MCDV-qualifying under Castleman. This is fact-dependent and circuit-dependent, but on the right facts, a Class C plea preserves federal firearm rights while still resolving the case.

None of these is guaranteed in every case — they require an attorney who understands the federal firearm overlay and is willing to negotiate the FV finding as a non-negotiable element of the deal.