The federal ban people call the Lautenberg Amendment is one sentence in the Gun Control Act: it is unlawful for any person "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm or ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)). Everything turns on what that phrase means. This page is part of the firearm section of our Montana Domestic Violence Guide. For the wider picture, start with PFMA and gun rights.
The Definition, Piece by Piece
| Part | What the statute requires | 18 U.S.C. |
|---|---|---|
| A misdemeanor | The offense is a misdemeanor under federal, state, tribal, or local law. | § 921(a)(33)(A)(i) |
| A force element | The offense has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon. | § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) |
| A listed relationship | It was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, a person who shares a child with the victim, a person who lives or lived with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, a person similarly situated, or a current or recent former dating partner. | § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) |
| Counsel | You had a lawyer, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to one. | § 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(I) |
| Jury | If you were entitled to a jury trial, the case was tried by a jury or you knowingly and intelligently waived it, by guilty plea or otherwise. | § 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(II) |
How Courts Read the Force Element
The Supreme Court has read "physical force" broadly here. In United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014), it held that the term carries its common-law meaning, which includes offensive touching, and that knowingly or intentionally causing bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force. In Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), it held that a reckless domestic assault qualifies too.
But the question is always about the elements of the statute of conviction, not about what happened that day. A federal court asks what the state had to prove. That is why the same conduct can count under one state's law and not under another's, and why the Ninth Circuit reached the result it did for Montana in United States v. DeFrance.
The Relationship Requirement
The federal list is narrower than Montana's definition of "partner or family member" in MCA § 45-5-206(2). The federal list covers spouses, parents, guardians, co-parents, cohabitants in those roles, people similarly situated, and dating partners. Montana's definition also reaches brothers, sisters, in-laws, and other past or present family members of a household. A Montana conviction involving a sibling, for example, raises a separate question about whether the federal relationship list is met at all.
Under United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), the relationship does not have to be an element of the earlier offense. It only has to be proved in the federal case.
The Dating Relationship Rule Added in 2022
Congress added "a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim" to the list in 2022. A dating relationship means a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature, judged by its length, its nature, and the frequency and type of interaction. A casual acquaintanceship or ordinary fraternization does not count (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(37)). The federal firearm regulation states that a conviction against a dating partner entered before June 25, 2022 is not counted (27 C.F.R. § 478.11).
This category has its own time limit. A person with no more than one such conviction, who is not otherwise prohibited, is no longer disqualified once five years have passed from the later of the judgment of conviction or the completion of any custodial or supervisory sentence, as long as there has been no later disqualifying offense (§ 921(a)(33)(C)). The statute says this restoration is not available to a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, a co-parent, or a cohabitant in one of those roles. Our page on dating relationships and PFMA covers the Montana side.
Convictions That Do Not Count
- No counsel, no valid waiver. You are not considered convicted unless you were represented or knowingly and intelligently waived counsel.
- Jury right not honored. If you were entitled to a jury trial, the case must have been tried to a jury or the right validly waived, by guilty plea or otherwise.
- Expunged, set aside, or pardoned. These remove the conviction for this purpose, unless the pardon or expungement expressly provides that you may not possess firearms (§ 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)).
- Civil rights restored. This applies only if the law of the jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights for the offense. See getting gun rights back.
What the Ban Covers and the Penalty
The ban covers firearms and ammunition, and it covers possessing as well as buying. A knowing violation of § 922(g) is punishable by up to 15 years in prison (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(8)). There is no exception for government-issued weapons, which is why this paragraph matters so much for police, military, and security work. Our page on ammunition and other weapons explains the scope.
This page explains federal law in general as of the current text of 18 U.S.C. §§ 921 and 922 and the 2025 Montana Code Annotated. Whether a particular conviction counts is a record-specific question. It is not legal advice about your specific case.