[10] This excludes crimes related to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).[11] This may happen when law enforcement brings an individual to a mental institution, or when a doctor petitions a court to keep a person in a mental institution against the wishes of that person.

While the DOJ has taken down several more over the last few years, it’s becoming difficult to keep up with the expanding market.Legal AuthoritiesIn Part II, the Report details the legal authorities that the DOJ has used – and will continue to use – in prosecuting cases involving cryptocurrency, such as:Wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343Mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341Securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j and 78ffAccess device fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1029Identity theft and fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1028Fraud and intrusions in connection with computers, 18 U.S.C. § 1030Illegal sale and possession of firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.Possession and distribution of counterfeit items, 18 U.S.C. § 2320Child exploitation activities, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.Possession and distribution of controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq.Money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956 et seqTransactions involving proceeds of illegal activity, 18 U.S.C. § 1957Operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business, 18 U.S.C. § 1960Failure to comply with Bank Secrecy Act requirements, 31 U.S.C. § 5331 et seq.Criminal forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. § 982; 21 U.S.C. § 853Civil forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. § 981.The list is extensive, and the DOJ notes that there are still several other authorities it could explore if necessary, including laws relating to national security, espionage, or conspiracies. Further, there are still obviously various reporting, registration, and record keeping regulations surrounding financial services firms.

Report at 16.[2] The Report references several statutes, including: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud); 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j and 78ff (Securities Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft and Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Fraud and Intrusions in Connection with Computers); 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. (Illegal Sale and Possession of Firearms); 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (Possession and Distribution of Counterfeit Items); 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq. (Child Exploitation Activities); 21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq. (Possession and Distribution of Controlled Substances); 18 U.S.C. § 1956 et seq. (Money Laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Transactions Involving Proceeds of Illegal Activity); 18 U.S.C. § 1960 (Operation of an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business); 31 U.S.C. § 5331 et seq. (Failure to Comply with Bank Secrecy Act Requirements); 18 U.S.C. § 982 and 21 U.S.C. § 853 (Criminal Forfeiture); and 18 U.S.C. § 981 (Civil Forfeiture).[3] Report at 26.[4]Id.

Indeed, only two – the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R.8) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R.1112) – have passed from the House to the Senate. The following is an overview of gun control-related bills organized by topic.Restriction of Assault Weapons and High-capacity MagazinesThe Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 (H.R.1296), which was introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) and has 205 co-sponsors, seeks to amend Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (as amended by the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 and subsequent enactments), 18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq., to make it "unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess . . . a semiautomatic assault weapon" (SAW) or a large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD). The definition of SAW is extensive and limits lawful possession of semiautomatic firearms to discrete subcategories of rifles, pistols and shotguns based on their appearance, magazine type (detachable versus fixed), and functional features (i.e., threaded barrel, forward grip, adjustable stock, etc.).

Expulsion may be imposed for off-campus conduct, however, only in limited circumstances, and otherwise school officials do not have jurisdiction over student behavior outside of school.By enacting the mandatory expulsion statutes, the General Assembly conferred jurisdiction on school officials over student misconduct in specified situations. Expulsion is mandatory in three situations of off-campus misconduct: (1) possession of a “firearm, as defined in 18 USC 921,” (2) possession and use of a firearm, deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or martial arts weapon in the commission of a crime, or (3) offering a controlled substance for sale or distribution. The requirement that expulsion be imposed for such conduct confers jurisdiction in such cases.Otherwise, school officials have jurisdiction over student misconduct off-campus only if the misconduct violates a publicized policy of the board of education and is “seriously disruptive of the educational process.”

18 USC 922 is the federal reference. Several terms defined are in 18 USC 921. “Intimate partner” is defined there.

How?The Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) is a federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. See 18 U.S.C. § 921, et seq. In creating the Maxim 50, SilencerCo relies on two seemingly nondescript (and oft overlooked) provisions of the GCA.

United States v. Pauler, 2017 WL 2233740 (May 23, 2017) (KS) (published): The panel reverses Pauler’s conviction for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime domestic violence. The term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A) as a “misdemeanor under Federal, State of Tribal law.” Using basic rules of statutory construction, the panel concludes that Pauler’s conviction for violating a municipal domestic battery ordinance is not a “misdemeanor under Federal, State or Tribal law.”

So sayeth the Tenth Circuit this week in United States v. Pauler:The term "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is defined in the pertinent statute as "a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law" that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by . . . a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). The district court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense, holding that Defendant violated § 922(g)(9) because he possessed a firearm in 2014 after having been convicted in 2009 of violating a Wichita, Kansas municipal domestic battery ordinance by punching his girlfriend.

The brief answer from two recent federal court decisions is “yes,” though the devil, as they say, is in the details.The first decision, from a highly fractured en banc panel of the Third Circuit, involves persons convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than one year, who are banned from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(20)(B) and 922(g)(1). A majority of the court held that applying that ban to the two men in this case violated their Second Amendment rights, though the vote was close (8 to 7) and there’s no apparent majority rationale for the result.