PDA

View Full Version : Latenberg in the Light of Heller/McDonald


halifax
07-29-2010, 6:25 AM
Now that gun ownership has been deemed a constitutionally guaranteed right, how can the Lautenberg Amendment be allowed to stand for those convicted of DV before Lautenberg?

Here is one article (http://womenshooters.com/archive/old0708issue/macnutt0708.html) about ex-post-facto.

Too long to post but it's a good read, nonetheless.

Flouncer
07-29-2010, 7:49 AM
What is DV ?? :confused:

AEC1
07-29-2010, 7:58 AM
Domestic Violence

ptoguy2002
07-29-2010, 8:30 AM
1. Owning a gun is a fundamental right.
2. Your rights can not be taken away without due process.
3. Therefore taking your guns away without due process is unconstitutional.

ETA: an the ex-post facto thing too.

... but so is a lot of other stuff that is law too.
Someday, maybe, but I would think that is a ways down the road, other stuff is more important, and to challenge you would really, really, really need the right plantiff. My 2 cents anyway.

Spartan
07-29-2010, 9:14 AM
Skalia came out and mentioned the life time ban on msd dv in the Hayes orals. Every case so far has not directly asked the question needed to overturn this, not even Wyegrzyn in the 6th circuit.

As for more pressing cases to be heard first, tell that to the poor sob's that got nailed with this on a msd conviction 30 years ago.

I've been reading this board for a few years now, all the legal minds here are sharp. But I dont see the testicular fortitude in them to take this on, hell, they never even post on these threads...

yellowfin
07-29-2010, 9:23 AM
It's not that we lack fortitude, it's that the particular matter in question is a VERY tricky one to resolve. Hard to get a plaintiff that's clean enough to win, hard to pick the right time and place, VERY hard to make the message to the public effective and immune to counterattack, and hard to define parameters of acceptable risk of defeat and acceptable partial win. Other issues are much more clear cut, easier to win, and predictable.

Gray Peterson
07-29-2010, 9:40 AM
It's not that we lack fortitude, it's that the particular matter in question is a VERY tricky one to resolve. Hard to get a plaintiff that's clean enough to win, hard to pick the right time and place, VERY hard to make the message to the public effective and immune to counterattack, and hard to define parameters of acceptable risk of defeat and acceptable partial win. Other issues are much more clear cut, easier to win, and predictable.

THIS. Spartan, the problem here is that essentially we have a self selection problem. The best way to attack this issue is not with a "spousal abuser", it is in one of the states which allow the taking away of firearms merely based on an "anti-harassment order" outside of the intimate partner context. Washington State is a state which allows for AH orders (which can be gotten by a neighbor against a neighbor, for example) to be firearm prohibitive to the person who hit with it. That is a much cleaner situation than a DV, and would allow us to roll and build to attacking the federal ban. Remember, folks, Justice Alito in McDonald already said that all things involving RKBA are now backwards and forwards compatible between state and federal violations of the right.

Spartan
07-29-2010, 9:42 AM
I'm not in California but a direct attack on your DOJ ten year ban/ATF lifetime ban would seem to be a great avenue.

7x57
07-29-2010, 10:02 AM
Also, consider the social context. Either we tread gingerly on issues like schools and domestic violence, or we stick our feet into beartraps. "Gingerly" means foregoing Constitutionally correct arguments that are subjectively disastrous.

Remember: scared judges often *will not* obey the law. That includes judges scared that we're arguing a constitutional right to batter women. Like it or not, that is how the wrong case will come across.

The ideal case, not for legal reasons but for reasons of playing to the particular bigotries of a typical court (and, less harshly, to illustrate the insanity of the consequences), would probably be to find a *woman* now in harms way whose gun rights were taken away for ridiculous reasons--mutual restraining orders in a nasty divorce or something with no hint of actual violence committed or threatened. I suspect that taking a woman's ability to defend herself because she and her ex couldn't agree on who got the house doesn't pass the laugh test even in front of the most hostile judge. I don't know if that is a good guess or if plaintiff can be found with all the right circumstances, but there is an amateur's try at a good context for this sort of thing.

7x57

halifax
07-29-2010, 10:10 AM
Also, consider the social context. Either we tread gingerly on issues like schools and domestic violence, or we stick our feet into beartraps. "Gingerly" means foregoing Constitutionally correct arguments that are subjectively disastrous.

Remember: scared judges often *will not* obey the law. That includes judges scared that we're arguing a constitutional right to batter women. Like it or not, that is how the wrong case will come across.

The ideal case, not for legal reasons but for reasons of playing to the particular bigotries of a typical court (and, less harshly, to illustrate the insanity of the consequences), would probably be to find a *woman* now in harms way whose gun rights were taken away for ridiculous reasons--mutual restraining orders in a nasty divorce or something with no hint of actual violence committed or threatened. I suspect that taking a woman's ability to defend herself because she and her ex couldn't agree on who got the house doesn't pass the laugh test even in front of the most hostile judge. I don't know if that is a good guess or if plaintiff can be found with all the right circumstances, but there is an amateur's try at a good context for this sort of thing.

7x57

I suppose it's more the disregarding of ex-post-facto that I find more dis-tasteful than the DV aspect, but your idea for a woman victim of this is good.

Wherryj
07-29-2010, 10:13 AM
1. Owning a gun is a fundamental right.
2. Your rights can not be taken away without due process.
3. Therefore taking your guns away without due process is unconstitutional.

ETA: an the ex-post facto thing too.

... but so is a lot of other stuff that is law too.
Someday, maybe, but I would think that is a ways down the road, other stuff is more important, and to challenge you would really, really, really need the right plantiff. My 2 cents anyway.

Too true. Physicians deal with Medicare/Medical under rules that allow fines and penalties without due process. In fact, the groups that "investigate" the claims of "abuse" are the ones that receive 30% of the "take" for discovering and "recovering" the "stolen" money.

How is that for due process? This happens without a trial, it happens with the side that investigates actually benefiting financially. Better yet, the government can come into a group practice, pull ten "random" charts and have the "experts" who are going to make money to find fraud "review" those charts.

They can determine that X of the 10 charts are "fraud" then impose a fine on X% of that physician's patients who have Medicare (with triple penalties) PLUS they can extrapolate that fine to EVERY other physician in that group without reviewing their charts if they so please.

You are right, there are a LOT of laws that absolutely violate our Constitutionally protected rights. It is because our politicians don't CARE about our rights.

BillCA
07-29-2010, 10:29 AM
The ideal case, not for legal reasons but for reasons of playing to the particular bigotries of a typical court (and, less harshly, to illustrate the insanity of the consequences), would probably be to find a *woman* now in harms way whose gun rights were taken away for ridiculous reasons--mutual restraining orders in a nasty divorce or something with no hint of actual violence committed or threatened. ...

I may know a woman who almost fits that criteria. Physically larger husband places himself in harms way between her and the door when she says she's leaving and again when she tries to take their child, telling her she'll have to make him move. She did - a shove - and he filed a DV complaint to get her arrested (and tried to use it to show her "unfit").

If Hoffman or someone at CGF is looking, I can make some discrete inquires with her.

BillCA
07-29-2010, 11:13 AM
Now that gun ownership has been deemed a constitutionally guaranteed right, how can the Lautenberg Amendment be allowed to stand for those convicted of DV before Lautenberg?

Here is one article (http://womenshooters.com/archive/old0708issue/macnutt0708.html) about ex-post-facto.

Too long to post but it's a good read, nonetheless.

I've long argued that the Lautenberg Act is an unconstitutional ex-post facto law and that Lautenberg knew it (if he did not, then both he and Congress are guilty of reckless incompetence). Not that Lautenberg cared on whit about our rights, of course.

The issue, as was pointed out in the article, is like pleading to a speeding ticket and paying the $123 ticket today. But then, two years later, you get a letter that says the legislature upped the fine to $250 and you must remit another $127 within 30 days or be suspended.

The unintended consequences it can have, if allowed to stand, are huge. If other such laws can be passed, then being charged with any misdemeanor, no matter how trivial, will be fought with a jury trial by the smart defendant. Minor charge of disturbing the peace for a loud TV? Fight it and empanel a jury. Forgot your court date or jury duty date? Fight it with a trial. That'd be a huge increase in tax expenditures and would clog the already slow court system.

And I think that'll be on one phase of the Brady Campaign (Take III) - to expand the "prohibited persons" disqualifiers as much and as broadly as possible. They don't trust anyone with guns. Certainly not if you're a scofflaw who, in 1975, forgot to pay a traffic citation for a dangerous and potentially deadly failure to signal a right turn.

halifax
07-29-2010, 1:37 PM
...

The unintended consequences it can have, if allowed to stand, are huge. If other such laws can be passed, then being charged with any misdemeanor, no matter how trivial, will be fought with a jury trial by the smart defendant. Minor charge of disturbing the peace for a loud TV? Fight it and empanel a jury. Forgot your court date or jury duty date? Fight it with a trial. That'd be a huge increase in tax expenditures and would clog the already slow court system.

And I think that'll be on one phase of the Brady Campaign (Take III) - to expand the "prohibited persons" disqualifiers as much and as broadly as possible. They don't trust anyone with guns. Certainly not if you're a scofflaw who, in 1975, forgot to pay a traffic citation for a dangerous and potentially deadly failure to signal a right turn.

BINGO

dantodd
07-29-2010, 2:34 PM
Edited to try and make some sense, not sure what I was thinking when I constructed the previous sentence.

The ex post facto portion of the law might not stand up to a good due process lawsuit.

MP301
07-29-2010, 2:47 PM
Here is ATF's reasoning as to why Lautenberg is not unconsistutional...

4. Is this provision of the law being applied retroactively in violation of 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.

More Q & A about DV from ATF....

http://www.aele.org/BATF-Q&A.html

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 2:49 PM
Attacking the ex post facto issue might not stand based on a due process claim.

So what to prevent them then from doing something like saying "We just passed a law that all crimes that were previously misdemeanors are now felonies. so if you've ever been convicted of or plead guilty to a MsD you are now considered a felon, and hence prohibited from firearms posession."

You got your due process the first time so there is no issue now right?


Or a better example then the raising the ticket fine after the fact would be, you're convicted and serve X amount time for your crime, 2 years after your sentence is complete you get hauled back to jail and told, the sentence for your crime has recently been increases and you are now required to serve X more time.


The problem with Lautenburg is that is places an additional penalty on people that was not part of the law at the time of their conviction. If that penalty had been part of the equation people might have chosen to not plead out and pursue their right to a trial.

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 2:52 PM
Here is ATF's reasoning as to why Lautenberg is not unconsistutional...

4. Is this provision of the law being applied retroactively in violation of 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.

More Q & A about DV from ATF....

http://www.aele.org/BATF-Q&A.html


Figures they'd come up winth something like that. How is a being banned for life from exercising what is now considered a fundamental right NOT an additonal penalty?

halifax
07-30-2010, 6:13 PM
Here is ATF's reasoning as to why Lautenberg is not unconsistutional...

4. Is this provision of the law being applied retroactively in violation of 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.

More Q & A about DV from ATF....

http://www.aele.org/BATF-Q&A.html

In CA aren't you supposed to give up all your firearms if you become a prohibited person? If so, then the BATFE's opinion is wrong.

yellowfin
07-30-2010, 7:05 PM
If the ATF were actually held to any accurate standard of constitutionality they'd have to renounce their very existence.

Wherryj
07-30-2010, 7:40 PM
I have a question related to this post involving another news story.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20100730/US.Gore.Sex.Allegations/

Gore was accused of an assault. Does that mean that under Latenberg he must give up his right to free speech? Or is that only if convicted? I'm confused.

dantodd
07-30-2010, 8:48 PM
So what to prevent them then from doing something like saying "We just passed a law that all crimes that were previously misdemeanors are now felonies. so if you've ever been convicted of or plead guilty to a MsD you are now considered a felon, and hence prohibited from firearms posession."

You got your due process the first time so there is no issue now right?



Sorry, my post was completely unintelligible. I've been running on too little sleep lately. I will edit it appropriately.

I meant to say that there might be a successful attack of the "ex post facto" portion of the law on the grounds that you were denied due process at the time because you didn't know that what you were pleaing to or convicted of would permanently prohibit you from exercising a fundamental right.

GaryV
07-30-2010, 11:18 PM
Here is ATF's reasoning as to why Lautenberg is not unconsistutional...

4. Is this provision of the law being applied retroactively in violation of 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.

More Q & A about DV from ATF....

http://www.aele.org/BATF-Q&A.html

Technically, they're correct that it doesn't violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws, because it doesn't make it a criminal offense for people convicted of DV to have owned guns prior to the law taking effect. An ex post facto law is one that makes a certain act criminal, and says that even if you only committed the act before the law took effect, you can still be found guilty. The only act that this law makes a crime is the possession of guns after you have been convicted of a DV misdemeanor or while under an order of protection. While DV convictions before the law was in effect still make you disqualified now, for the law to be ex post facto, it would have to allow you to be charged with a crime if you owned guns anytime after your DV conviction, even if you got rid of them before the law took effect. Unless the prohibited action - possession of firearms - is punishable even if it only occurred before the law took effect, the law is not "retroactive", or ex post facto.

Think of it in terms of the prohibition against felons. It doesn't matter when your felony conviction was, if you are a convicted felon, you're prohibited, even if your conviction was prior to the 1968 GCA. It's the exact same thing with Lautenberg, except that instead of felony, it's DV. Let's say a man convicted of armed robbery in 1950 got out of prison in 1953, bought himself a handgun, but then sold it later. If he didn't sell it until 2009, he could be charged with having been a felon in possession, because he continued owning the gun after the GCA took effect. However, if he sold it in 1963, he cannot be charged with having been a felon in possession for the 10 years when that was true, because even though he was a felon in possession, it wasn't a crime at the time, and that would be a violation of the ex post facto prohibition. As far as ex post facto goes, it doesn't matter whether he was a felon before or after GCA took effect, it matters when he owned the gun.

BigDogatPlay
07-31-2010, 3:11 AM
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.

Ehhhhh... last time I checked a restriction on enumerated rights, regardless of when applied, would be considered a punishment and should be subject to due process. I'm not aware of any other fundemental right that can be infringed based on administrative action.

The Lautenberg amendment has been found in a number of cases to not be ex post facto... even though common sense and logic clearly should hold it to be.

In a post McDonald environment the ex post facto and lifetime revocation of rights for a single misdemeanor committed at some random point in time prior to adoption of the amendment looks and feels to be a ripe apple ready to be picked.

A law abiding woman who got one time jacked on a humbug DV charge by a spouse looking for advantage in a divorce or custody proceeding would be (I think) a perfect plaintiff to go after Lautenberg.

GaryV
07-31-2010, 7:03 AM
Ehhhhh... last time I checked a restriction on enumerated rights, regardless of when applied, would be considered a punishment and should be subject to due process. I'm not aware of any other fundemental right that can be infringed based on administrative action.

This is the right path to challenge Lautenberg, although no matter what method is used, it won't be an easy challenge, because, on top of all the difficulties surrounding DV, almost any general challenge to the prohibition due to DV convictions is also going to bring into question the prohibition on felons.

The Lautenberg amendment has been found in a number of cases to not be ex post facto... even though common sense and logic clearly should hold it to be.

See my post above for an explanation as to why Lautenberg does not meet the definition of an ex post facto law and cannot be successfully challenged on those grounds. The crime it creates, DV misdemeanant in possession, like felon in possession, is not retroactive.

The fact that the prohibiting condition could have existed before the law does not make the law ex post facto. Let's say next year we repealed the 19th Amendment and made it a crime for women to vote. Unless the law allowed women who voted between 1920 and the passage of the law, during which time it was legal for them to vote, to be charged with violating it, the law would not be ex post facto. The fact that they were women before the law was passed (prohibition based on an already-existing status or condition) is irrelevant and does not make the law ex post facto. People get hung up on the concept of the prohibition being applied to a crime that occurred before the law was passed, but that is not what ex post facto means.

BigDogatPlay
07-31-2010, 8:09 AM
This is the right path to challenge Lautenberg, although no matter what method is used, it won't be an easy challenge, because, on top of all the difficulties surrounding DV, almost any general challenge to the prohibition due to DV convictions is also going to bring into question the prohibition on felons.

I actually think that prohibition of felons is not in question at all. Lautenberg is wholly separate and the felon prohibition is not only long standing, we have the SCOTUS in recent cases saying that it is not an infringement but rather a compelling interest of the state.

Lautenberg's misdemeanor prohibition needs to be litigated separately as I believe the blanket application can be proven to greatly exceed any compelling interest.... given the right plaintiff(s).

See my post above for an explanation as to why Lautenberg does not meet the definition of an ex post facto law and cannot be successfully challenged on those grounds. The crime it creates, DV misdemeanant in possession, like felon in possession, is not retroactive.

Please see my post again... I pointed out that the Lautenberg prohibition has been held specifically in several cases to not be [/i]ex post facto[/i].

I personally believe it is because it created out of a thin air a disability where none existed before and applied retroactively to people who had not been subject to it, and without due process. That is a classic ex post facto, even though the courts and conventional wisdom seem to agree that it isn't. But I believe if it is re-examined through the prism of McDonald it may come up deficient.

If we reach back through the many decades that felon in possession prohibitions have in place, I would suspect that there is no one alive who gained that prohibition after the fact of their adjudication by administrative operation of law. Currently there are perhaps tens of thousands of people alive now who became prohibited by Lautenberg without benefit of due process, but rather by legislative fiat.

I'm not saying that Lautenberg needs to be completely washed away, although perhaps it needs to be if only so a more realistic standard can be put into place. Chronic DV offenders, even though they might be misdemeanants, don't need access to firearms as far as I am concerned, to take one example.

I'm saying that key elements are overly broad, and that if it is to continue, there needs to be a means test for application and that test needs to be arguable / rebutable at sentencing.

GuyW
07-31-2010, 10:02 AM
I get the explanation on the intricacies of ex post facto as the legal industry currently says it "is", but it still smells the same.

Officially, formally changing the legal punishment after the fact / after the defendant weighed the options presented pre-Plea / after the Judge weighed the factors / stinks of un-American. It certainly has no relation to Justice (OK, I'll stop and you can get off the floor...)

How about we pass a law that say that everyone in prison just got another 10 years added to their sentence? That OK?

How about we turn old driving infractions into misdemeanors now?

What would we call it if the legislature upgraded some misdemeanor convictions to felonies? Kool with that?

The place to stop the downhill slide is near the top, before it picks up speed...

MMM - how about a referendum to make successful election to the legislature and Congress a state felony - good with that? (I am..)
.

GaryV
07-31-2010, 10:08 AM
I actually think that prohibition of felons is not in question at all. Lautenberg is wholly separate and the felon prohibition is not only long standing, we have the SCOTUS in recent cases saying that it is not an infringement but rather a compelling interest of the state.

Lautenberg's misdemeanor prohibition needs to be litigated separately as I believe the blanket application can be proven to greatly exceed any compelling interest.... given the right plaintiff(s).

I didn't suggest that the felon prohibition was in question. The point is that there are only a few arguments against Lautenberg, and they all would apply to the felon prohibition as well. Because of this, whether it is litigated separately or not, we need to accept that many judges are going to look at our arguments and ask, either out loud or to themselves, how those arguments are more valid for Lautenberg than they are for the felon prohibition. While we may believe that there is a great imbalance, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing a lot of judges that such is true when you compare a minor non-violent felony against DV.

Please see my post again... I pointed out that the Lautenberg prohibition has been held specifically in several cases to not be [/i]ex post facto[/i].

Yes, but you ended that statement by saying:

even though common sense and logic clearly should hold it to be.

That's what I was responding to.

I personally believe it is because it created out of a thin air a disability where none existed before and applied retroactively to people who had not been subject to it, and without due process. That is a classic ex post facto, even though the courts and conventional wisdom seem to agree that it isn't. But I believe if it is re-examined through the prism of McDonald it may come up deficient.

But this is exactly the same as the felon prohibition. Before the 1968 GCA, felons were not prohibited persons; after that they were. And it was retroactive, even though no such disability existed prior to that. All convicted felons automatically became prohibited persons, without any further due process. In fact, all Lautenberg did was to add DV misdemeanants to the list already included in the 1968 GCA, right along with felons and the mentally ill. It's not even a separate law, only an amendment (hence the name Lautenberg Amendment) to the same law that prohibits felons, through the exact same mechanism and process. McDonald (and Heller) are irrelevant to all this, because the law is either ex post facto or it isn't. Its effect on fundamental rights, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with that. And neither case dealt in any way with the issue of ex post facto laws.

A law with an ex post facto effect is not itself automatically an ex post facto law. In this case the courts have ruled that the prohibition is not a punishment, but a regulatory action, regulating guns. Unless you can convince the court that the opposite is true (which isn't likely to happen), the ex post facto argument will fail. Not only that, but were it to succeed, it would automatically invalidate the felon prohibition on the same grounds, since the exact same action by the government cannot be a punishment when applied to one group and merely regulatory when applied to the other.

If we reach back through the many decades that felon in possession prohibitions have in place, I would suspect that there is no one alive who gained that prohibition after the fact of their adjudication by administrative operation of law. Currently there are perhaps tens of thousands of people alive now who became prohibited by Lautenberg without benefit of due process, but rather by legislative fiat.

First, I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong in the first assertion. The prohibition has only existed since October 22nd 1968, so I'm sure there are still lots of people alive today who attained prohibited status after the fact of their conviction. But even if no one was, your assertion shows one of the flaws in the ex post facto approach - even if the argument were to succeed, it would not overturn or significantly change the law, since all those convicted since 1996 would still be prohibited. Eventually everyone to whom the law applies retroactively would die (by your calculations, it would appear to only take another 30 years) and the law would then be essentially the same in effect as it is today. Better to attack it on other grounds that are both more likely to succeed and more effective in making a real change.

I'm not saying that Lautenberg needs to be completely washed away, although perhaps it needs to be if only so a more realistic standard can be put into place. Chronic DV offenders, even though they might be misdemeanants, don't need access to firearms as far as I am concerned, to take one example.

I'm saying that key elements are overly broad, and that if it is to continue, there needs to be a means test for application and that test needs to be arguable / rebutable at sentencing.

I don't disagree with you here, except that I believe it needs to go away altogether (but then I have a problem with the felon prohibition as well), but again, anything you apply to Lautenberg will have to pass muster against the felon prohibition as well, because the only difference is in the nature of the crime, not the way in which the prohibition is imposed. And I still believe that this is always going to be the main obstacle to challenging Lautenberg, because it is always going to be extremely difficult to say a prohibition should apply to someone found guilty of a relatively minor non-violent felony, but not to someone found guilty of a crime that, by definition is violent in nature, simply because it is a misdemeanor. If anything, I would say that "compelling state interest" argument would favor prohibiting the later before the former.

GuyW
07-31-2010, 10:23 AM
A law with an ex post facto effect is not itself automatically an ex post facto law. In this case the courts have ruled that the prohibition is not a punishment, but a regulatory action, regulating guns. Unless you can convince the court that the opposite is true (which isn't likely to happen), the ex post facto argument will fail. Not only that, but were it to succeed, it would automatically invalidate the felon prohibition on the same grounds, since the exact same action by the government cannot be a punishment when applied to one group and merely regulatory when applied to the other.


Removing the most effective means to practice a fundamental right to defend your life isn't regulatory, it is cruel and unusual punishment, except (apparently) within Alice's Wonderland that is the judiciary...
.

GaryV
07-31-2010, 11:13 AM
Removing the most effective means to practice a fundamental right to defend your life isn't regulatory, it is cruel and unusual punishment, except (apparently) within Alice's Wonderland that is the judiciary...
.

I agree with you. The problem is that there is a logic, albeit a convoluted one, that can be used to come to the opposite conclusion. It depends on your point of view about whether the law is primarily by purpose an action against convicted criminals or a regulation on guns. It's both in effect, but which purpose you give the greater weight makes all the difference, since one is legal and the other isn't.

The other problem is that our opinions on that issue don't mean much until we're appointed to a federal judgeship.