PDA

View Full Version : Lifetime Ban for Misdemeanor Domestic "Violence" (Enos v Holder)


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Baja Daze
03-28-2012, 10:08 PM
There has to be more than that because boot camp/basic training did not occur in Afghanistan...

I'm thinking that in some states a DV expungement counts as a total restoration,but not in CA.....

IANAL but I think this is correct. In many states an expungement is a TRUE expungement. However here in Kaliforniastan we have more of an "expungement light" statute and an expunged offense can still come back to haunt an individual such as being considered a prior offense if subsequently charged with similar a crime.

SunTzu
03-29-2012, 4:32 PM
The Courts saying it doesn't meet Fed definition is pure nonsense. It did for years until BATFE changed its mind. Look at most pardon laws, ' Forgiven but not forgotten'.

shocknm
04-18-2012, 5:12 PM
What does the future timetable look like?

Gunlawyer
04-18-2012, 9:55 PM
What does the future timetable look like?
:twoweeks:

Sleighter
04-18-2012, 10:17 PM
I found the following information on another thread on "MD Shooters Sleeper: Enos v. Holder (Lautenberg) post #86:

CA9 Case # 12-15498

Taking a peek over at CA9 gives us a Schedule:

Quote:
03/08/2012 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/15/2012. Transcript ordered by 03/30/2012. Transcript due 04/30/2012. Appellants Jeff Bastasini, Richard Enos, Edward Erikson, Walter Groves, Louie Mercado, Manuel Monteiro and Vernon Newman opening brief due 06/08/2012. Appellees Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, Robert S. Mueller III and United States of America answering brief due 07/09/2012. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [8095245] (RT)

Appellant/Pltf Opening Brief: 6/8/12
Appellee/Def Answering Brief: 7/9/12
Appellant Optional Reply Brief: 7/23/12

What does the future timetable look like?

Really shocknm? The timetable was provided 5 posts above yours and 20 days beforehand. Lots of time to catch up on the progress. yay.........

bayjed
04-26-2012, 1:35 PM
I read alot of the case, but I just can't understand their aurgument on this point. after 1203.4 my case is "dismissed" therefor I am not convicted, the california exemption of 10 years is an internal california matter, shouldn't the feds just be looking at the disposition of the case? doesnt it say in the fed law "convicted" If I am not convicted how does their law apply?

Also I dont get why, if I go back to court and get my gun rights restored in california why the feds do not need to reconize this? I do not understand their aurgument.

Funtimes
04-26-2012, 11:55 PM
I read alot of the case, but I just can't understand their aurgument on this point. after 1203.4 my case is "dismissed" therefor I am not convicted, the california exemption of 10 years is an internal california matter, shouldn't the feds just be looking at the disposition of the case? doesnt it say in the fed law "convicted" If I am not convicted how does their law apply?

Also I dont get why, if I go back to court and get my gun rights restored in california why the feds do not need to reconize this? I do not understand their aurgument.

We just had a case here in Hawaii dealing with dismissals being final judgements. ICA said it wasn't, Hawaii Supreme court said it was a judgement.

.358 Win
05-23-2012, 12:37 PM
I read alot of the case, but I just can't understand their aurgument on this point. after 1203.4 my case is "dismissed" therefor I am not convicted, the california exemption of 10 years is an internal california matter, shouldn't the feds just be looking at the disposition of the case? doesnt it say in the fed law "convicted" If I am not convicted how does their law apply?

Also I dont get why, if I go back to court and get my gun rights restored in california why the feds do not need to reconize this? I do not understand their aurgument.


Because the Federal Government is in the business of usurping authority. We must not forget that they should protect our rights - not - conceive ways to deprive them.

mobileglass
06-01-2012, 7:25 PM
I have been in contact with local Assemblymembers and US Reps. I think a ruling from the Court would be great and strong, however I feel there are legislative options available also. These would not diminish the punishment, but would restore this right upon certain circumstances.
If you guys feel as I do, please send these ideas to your local Assemblymember.

1. Add full restoration of firearm rights to current expungement PC 1203.4.

2. Amend 1203.4 to allow courts to dictate an affirmation or denial of restoration of gun
rights to each application of expungement upon meeting the criteria....

3. Amend PC12021 Ten-year firearm restriction.
A. Allow petition for restoration of gun rights upon completion of probation.
B. After 10 year restriction, fully restore gun rights by stating it does restore
C. Apply peace officer exemption. Allowance of one-time restoration at minimum.


These are just some ideas that need refined.

MP301
06-01-2012, 9:46 PM
I have been in contact with local Assemblymembers and US Reps. I think a ruling from the Court would be great and strong, however I feel there are legislative options available also. These would not diminish the punishment, but would restore this right upon certain circumstances.
If you guys feel as I do, please send these ideas to your local Assemblymember.

1. Add full restoration of firearm rights to current expungement PC 1203.4.

I agree that restoratuon if gun rights should come with expungment, regardless if time since the offense.

2. Amend 1203.4 to allow courts to dictate an affirmation or denial of restoration of gun
rights to each application of expungement upon meeting the criteria....

3. Amend PC12021 Ten-year firearm restriction.
A. Allow petition for restoration of gun rights upon completion of probation.

Agree 100%
B. After 10 year restriction, fully restore gun rights by stating it does restore

I agree exceot 10 year BS prohibition shoiuld be 5 years or less.


C. Apply peace officer exemption. Allowance of one-time restoration at minimum.

WHAT? This is where I think you are way, way off base. Part of the reasons stupid and/or over restricting laws get passed is because Law Enforcement supports it ..but only if they get exemptions or are otherwise less likely to get jammed up by these laws like normal folks do. Did we forget that LE is supposed to be better then your average citizens? Why would they need an exemption if they are less likely to do these evil deeds? Something to think about, isnt it? If a law is good enough to pass for regular folks, then there should be no less than the same penalty (some say it should be higher for) to LE.

Seriously, LE as a group will be far less likely to sell out RKBA if they get hosed like everyone else when some of these stupid laws are passed.

These are just some ideas that need refined.

Refined yes...but some good stuff there anyway.....except the last one!:p

anthonyca
06-02-2012, 2:19 AM
I have been in contact with local Assemblymembers and US Reps. I think a ruling from the Court would be great and strong, however I feel there are legislative options available also. These would not diminish the punishment, but would restore this right upon certain circumstances.
If you guys feel as I do, please send these ideas to your local Assemblymember.

1. Add full restoration of firearm rights to current expungement PC 1203.4.

2. Amend 1203.4 to allow courts to dictate an affirmation or denial of restoration of gun
rights to each application of expungement upon meeting the criteria....

3. Amend PC12021 Ten-year firearm restriction.
A. Allow petition for restoration of gun rights upon completion of probation.
B. After 10 year restriction, fully restore gun rights by stating it does restore
C. Apply peace officer exemption. Allowance of one-time restoration at minimum.


These are just some ideas that need refined.

I agree with your changes, except the police exemption, and that is the only one with any chance of being passed.

The NRA won't even touch the prohibited person laws with a 10 foot pole, legislators sure won't. Even many people on this board believe that the lifetime ban for misdemeanor DV is a good idea. Most people think that DV means beating the heck out of your spouse or kid and after I posted the law and jury instruction most are still in denial that they would be prohibited for life for things they have already done.

Our government is out of control and hates your rights, this is they only chance we have right now to defeat this!

I appreciate your efforts and I wish we could get government and elected office holders to respect rights and listen to us but they are diametrically opposed to freedom and fundamental rights.

Gene Hoffman, chairman of the calguns foundation, has a great quote in his sig line, it reads, "The problem with gun rights is the left hates guns and the right hates rights", by Anon.(sp?)

Thank you for posting and I do believe we need to dramatically increase the pressure on elected office holders to respect all rights, but we must not rely on that front.

OleCuss
06-02-2012, 5:35 AM
A political push to fix this stuff would be a horrible public relations disaster and very counter-productive at this time.

Can you just imagine the headlines?

"NRA Wants to Arm Wifebeaters"
"When a Beating Isn't Enough, CGF Wants You Shot"

You kinda get the idea. We don't have the money or the press to beat the lies which would be trumpeted.

So you handle it in court where you don't get quite as much of the posturing in the press as you'd get if you were trying to get stuff passed by publicity-hungry politicians.

In the court you also get to position yourself as the abused/plaintiff whereas I can pretty much guarantee that if you try to do it politically you'll be portrayed as the abuser (and a homicidal abuser at that).

Political disaster. Don't touch it with a 1,000 foot pole at this time. Maybe some years from now when our RKBA has the judicial record secure and public opinion has shifted a bit.

mobileglass
06-02-2012, 9:53 AM
The political push does seem to frighten, especially in regard to this case, however there is a push from the other end and that is why we are in court, correct? Our rights are being traded off and bartered. Swept through Congress, piggy-backing on other bills that no one reads, or doesn't have time to read. Hundreds of pages, with one small paragraph snuck in there, such as MCDV Lifetime ban. Why not push back? They are legislating around the Second Amendment as it stands. Why leave everything so ambiguous? Why not demand a definition! In this case, it would be define expungement.

*****James W. Diehm has written a great article on this issue; “Federal Expungement: A Concept in Need of a Definition,”

http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1758&context=lawreview

Notes regarding:
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2) (1988); infra notes 139-41 and accompanying text; see
also 56 Fed. Reg. 22,762, 22,773 (1991) (commentary to amendments to Sentencing Guidelines for United States courts making definition of "prohibited person" dependent upon provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)). These statutes, however, are narrow in scope and provide neither a federal policy nor general authority for expungement.

The Court tramples on the Constitution by not ruling and dismissing Enos V Holder. The ideas that I have submitted do not stray from what is already on the books in regard to felonies. So, please explain why you guys disagree if a felony battery can be waived and a misdemeanor cannot; as is current law. If the police exemption is already there, all I did was line things up evenly.

OleCuss
06-02-2012, 10:54 AM
Actually, the case under discussion could further the interests you have. I've not recently read the filing, but it seems to me that a favorable ruling could at least advance the definition of expungement and could result in case law which prevents the wrongful trampling on the RKBA for those who have had problems with the law.

The case law will be more durable than would the political/legislative fix, but I agree that eventually we'll need to have the strength to pursue some related legislation.

But right now the political/legislative fix is simply not possible. The court fix may be possible.

mobileglass
06-02-2012, 12:12 PM
Our governments continue to contradict themselves. We buy and sell firearms from FFL within a sovereign State. Will California waiver from a federal background check, doubtfully; because they see the contradiction it creates within these guidelines, which would place citizens in danger of the .00001 percent of MCDV that are so loosely held hostage to eliminate a loophole with legislation created by Lautenberg for the likely .00001 percent of those arrested for felony DV, which they seek to criminalize under misdemeanor laws as equally felonius; creating a much larger, more restrictive, and unconstitutional reverse-discrimination toward, and arguably, non-violent persons.

Find below a link to "NICS Improvement Amendments Act: State Records Estimates Development and Validation Project, Year One Report."
[state sovereignty]

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/232195.pdf

"First, the Act allows states to obtain a waiver, beginning in 2011, of the state matching requirement under the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant program, if a state provides at least 90 percent of its records identifying persons in specified prohibited categories."

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

anthonyca
06-03-2012, 7:40 AM
The political push does seem to frighten, especially in regard to this case, however there is a push from the other end and that is why we are in court, correct? Our rights are being traded off and bartered. Swept through Congress, piggy-backing on other bills that no one reads, or doesn't have time to read. Hundreds of pages, with one small paragraph snuck in there, such as MCDV Lifetime ban. Why not push back? They are legislating around the Second Amendment as it stands. Why leave everything so ambiguous? Why not demand a definition! In this case, it would be define expungement.

*****James W. Diehm has written a great article on this issue; “Federal Expungement: A Concept in Need of a Definition,”

http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1758&context=lawreview

Notes regarding:
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(2) (1988); infra notes 139-41 and accompanying text; see
also 56 Fed. Reg. 22,762, 22,773 (1991) (commentary to amendments to Sentencing Guidelines for United States courts making definition of "prohibited person" dependent upon provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)). These statutes, however, are narrow in scope and provide neither a federal policy nor general authority for expungement.

The Court tramples on the Constitution by not ruling and dismissing Enos V Holder. The ideas that I have submitted do not stray from what is already on the books in regard to felonies. So, please explain why you guys disagree if a felony battery can be waived and a misdemeanor cannot; as is current law. If the police exemption is already there, all I did was line things up evenly.

I agree that we need to push back on all fronts. The legal front is the best chance we have to push through enemy lines at this point and this case is the M1 Garand of WWII.

Please donate to the Madison Society Foundation if you believe in this cause. http://madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm

The case is Enos v Holder. Tell everyone you know who disagrees with lifetime bans for a misdemeanor about this case.

bayjed
06-20-2012, 6:50 AM
What about passing a new and real expungement law. Call it the The fresh Start Act, or something like that.

After 10 years a misdomeanor is considered to have never occured and records are sealed and destroyed. This would fix all the problems with 1203.4after 10 years. I see no reason why I need to disclose a 10 year old misdomeanor when applying to for a state license, contracting with the lottery, or vending. It was 10 years ago and a misdomeanor not a felony.

Also a side effect is that a real expungement would fix the problem with the fed law we are talking about.

It is reasonable that after 10 years a misdomeanor would go away, I think it would pass if marketed as a limit to how long a midomeanor is allowed to affect your life. 10 years is enough.

Just an Idea I had. Now how do I get started?

bayjed
06-20-2012, 7:01 AM
there are alot of people trying to better themselfs that have to deal with minor run ins from the law that are ancient history. For example nursning students applying for their license. OR a good person who wants to teach and got in a fight with his bipolar wife 12 years ago. Why should they have to disclose something from so long ago that wasnt serious enough to prosecute as a felony. Also minorities that got into trouble in their youth because of where they grew up and want to better themselves, why should they have to relive their mistakes over and over again when ever they want to get a state license. If it wasnt serious enough to get a felony there should be a limit on how long it can affect your life, after 10 years all traces of it should be gone. "It was a misdomeanor and it was over 10 years ago"

Maestro Pistolero
06-20-2012, 7:10 AM
Excellent post.

FYI: misdemeanor, not misdomeanor.

NoJoke
06-20-2012, 7:36 AM
there are alot of people trying to better themselfs that have to deal with minor run ins from the law that are ancient history. For example nursning students applying for their license. OR a good person who wants to teach and got in a fight with his bipolar wife 12 years ago. Why should they have to disclose something from so long ago that wasnt serious enough to prosecute as a felony. Also minorities that got into trouble in their youth because of where they grew up and want to better themselves, why should they have to relive their mistakes over and over again when ever they want to get a state license. If it wasnt serious enough to get a felony there should be a limit on how long it can affect your life, after 10 years all traces of it should be gone. "It was a misdomeanor and it was over 10 years ago"

it's worse than you know (or maybe you do) -

Something as simple as an incident report (no prosecution at all) will cause an automatic denial for a LTC.

But, in my opinion - the answer to your question is that the whole idea is to permanently disarm as many as possible. A total disregard to the individual circumstances you post.

anthonyca
06-20-2012, 4:28 PM
I found the following information on another thread on "MD Shooters Sleeper: Enos v. Holder (Lautenberg) post #86:

CA9 Case # 12-15498

Taking a peek over at CA9 gives us a Schedule:

Quote:
03/08/2012 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/15/2012. Transcript ordered by 03/30/2012. Transcript due 04/30/2012. Appellants Jeff Bastasini, Richard Enos, Edward Erikson, Walter Groves, Louie Mercado, Manuel Monteiro and Vernon Newman opening brief due 06/08/2012. Appellees Eric H. Holder Jr., Attorney General, Robert S. Mueller III and United States of America answering brief due 07/09/2012. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [8095245] (RT)

Appellant/Pltf Opening Brief: 6/8/12
Appellee/Def Answering Brief: 7/9/12
Appellant Optional Reply Brief: 7/23/12

Does someone have a link to this? Appellant/Pltf Opening Brief: 6/8/12

HowardW56
06-20-2012, 5:36 PM
Last docket entries...

Date is now July 9 for the opening brief....

05/09/2012 8 (https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/docs1/009023892968)Filed (ECF) Appellants Jeff Bastasini, Richard Enos, Edward Erikson, Walter Groves, Louie Mercado, Manuel Monteiro and Vernon Newman Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 07/09/2012 at 11:59 pm, Motion to extend time to file record on appeal until 07/09/2012 at 11:59 pm. Date of service: 05/09/2012. [8170694] (DK)

05/11/20129 (https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/docs1/009023903298)Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS):Appellants’ unopposed motion for a extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due July 9, 2012; the answering brief is due August 8, 2012; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellants are reminded that a motion for an extension of time should be accompanied by a declaration stating that the court reporter is not in default with regard to any designated transcripts. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(b)(7). [8175482] (LBS)

dad
06-20-2012, 5:39 PM
there are alot of people trying to better themselfs that have to deal with minor run ins from the law that are ancient history. For example nursning students applying for their license. OR a good person who wants to teach and got in a fight with his bipolar wife 12 years ago. Why should they have to disclose something from so long ago that wasnt serious enough to prosecute as a felony. Also minorities that got into trouble in their youth because of where they grew up and want to better themselves, why should they have to relive their mistakes over and over again when ever they want to get a state license. If it wasnt serious enough to get a felony there should be a limit on how long it can affect your life, after 10 years all traces of it should be gone. "It was a misdomeanor and it was over 10 years ago"

I agree! A misdemeanor record should be purged!

mobileglass
07-03-2012, 5:09 PM
EVERYBODY,

As I posted before, I engaged you all in new legislative ideas. I am in the process of proposing a few ideas to a Central Valley State Assemblymember.
The main objective at this time would be to propose that misdemeanor expungement would fully restore firearm rights after 10 years; or upon completion of all court orders after conviction, which would allow application to court to restore before ten years. Objectively, it is fair and reasonable in comparison to the current position Title 18 causes. Basically, it would force the courts to use a stay away order to enforce taking away your firearm rights, instead of this blanket restriction for "non-violent" convictions.
I lost my career as a police officer over a claimed touch by my estranged wife who came back to town and began making reports, it all ended with a female judge presiding, a female jury, and no money to hire a decent attorney, 243 conviction at age 23, in 2001. I have read of others losing their careers over fighting with other officers. Its not just MCDV that is causing the issue of restriction, its battery in general. People with battery convictions that are not defined as MCDV get their rights back after ten years....lets fix the Penal Code and parallel hopefully with a positive result from Enos.
We need a way out of being punished, and our system is meant to "Correct" not violate Civil Liberties.
I am not going to add all my ideas until the proposal is fully complete.

Please add your ideas, or email them.

JJ

This would eliminate conflict with Title 18.

Please post any ideas you may have.

OleCuss
07-03-2012, 6:42 PM
Please coordinate with the NRA on this. You need to contact their lobbyist and discuss their take on this. CRPA-ILA's lobbyist is also an important factor.

If those lobbyists tell you that this is a bad idea then it is probably a strategically problematic concept. If they are behind you, then you will have real political clout behind you.

Off-hand I am not optimistic. As I currently understand the politics, the legislature is not likely to be at all kind to this one.

But if the lobbyists join you and you can get the LEO unions behind you - you may have a chance.

I like the effort and think it is a great idea on its own. But there may be context in which it will work out very poorly.

shocknm
07-09-2012, 8:50 PM
Last docket entries...

Date is now July 9 for the opening brief....

05/09/2012 8 (https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/docs1/009023892968)Filed (ECF) Appellants Jeff Bastasini, Richard Enos, Edward Erikson, Walter Groves, Louie Mercado, Manuel Monteiro and Vernon Newman Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 07/09/2012 at 11:59 pm, Motion to extend time to file record on appeal until 07/09/2012 at 11:59 pm. Date of service: 05/09/2012. [8170694] (DK)

05/11/20129 (https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/docs1/009023903298)Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS):Appellants’ unopposed motion for a extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due July 9, 2012; the answering brief is due August 8, 2012; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. Appellants are reminded that a motion for an extension of time should be accompanied by a declaration stating that the court reporter is not in default with regard to any designated transcripts. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(b)(7). [8175482] (LBS)

Anyone have a link to today's opening brief ?

hoffmang
07-09-2012, 10:04 PM
Let's see if I can attach it here.

-Gene

anthonyca
07-09-2012, 10:11 PM
Let's see if I can attach it here.

-Gene

Thank you Gene.

ewarmour
07-10-2012, 6:23 AM
Alice over when jam can be served:
“You couldn't have it if you did want it,” the Queen said. “The
rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday – but never jam today.”
“It must come sometimes to 'jam today,'” Alice objected.
“No, it can't,” said the Queen. “It's jam every other day: today
isn't any other day, you know.”
Through the Looking-Glass (5.16-18)
By Lewis Carroll

LMAO! I'm sending more money to the Madison Society today.

Lex Arma
07-10-2012, 6:01 PM
The version of the Enos Brief that Gene posted has a defect of PDF formatting on page 30. A corrected version was filed today. Look for the post here soon.

dantodd
07-10-2012, 6:52 PM
The version of the Enos Brief that Gene posted has a defect of PDF formatting on page 30. A corrected version was filed today. Look for the post here soon.

:thumbsup:

Lex Arma
07-10-2012, 7:29 PM
:thumbsup:

Yeh, apparently ARIAL-Multnational gets weird, but ARIAL-postscript converts to PDF just fine.

dantodd
07-10-2012, 7:57 PM
Yeh, apparently ARIAL-Multnational gets weird, but ARIAL-postscript converts to PDF just fine.

Arcane filing requirements are arcane.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
07-10-2012, 8:23 PM
This brief is very readable and persuasive...I think the existing decisional law is bad and probably fatal, but this argument is well-taken: "This means that Congress is presumed to have known that there were no states that suspend the ‘civil rights’ (1) to vote, (2) to sit on a jury, and (3) to hold public office as a collateral consequence of a conviction for a MCDV."

taperxz
07-10-2012, 8:42 PM
This brief is very readable and persuasive...I think the existing decisional law is bad and probably fatal, but this argument is well-taken: "This means that Congress is presumed to have known that there were no states that suspend the ‘civil rights’ (1) to vote, (2) to sit on a jury, and (3) to hold public office as a collateral consequence of a conviction for a MCDV."

:D OK!

hoffmang
07-12-2012, 10:21 PM
For anyone who wants to see the text of the 10th amendment in it's correct orientation as corrected in CA-9.

-Gene

lordvader
07-13-2012, 9:10 PM
Im like some who have been on both ends of this. I dont like Lautenberg for he's a coward cause he couldn't get it passed on it's own and then look who signed it! I want this amendment buried in a deep pit so no one get affected by it. But 1 question has been bugging me from the start. If all good men knew this was bad. Why didn't they stop it from happening and why good men still won't do any thing about it. To many times i hear about wife beaters as an excuse. That's a politicion, lie to you, steal from you and yet do nothing. It's time to get the ball and start scoring some points

lordvader
07-14-2012, 12:23 AM
I would like know what can be done to repeal Lautenberg amendment and how i can get involved. Any one knowledgeable on legal and political views i can communicate with?

Purple K
07-14-2012, 6:06 AM
Would Fisher v. Kealoha be persuasive in this case?

anthonyca
07-16-2012, 10:30 AM
I would like know what can be done to repeal Lautenberg amendment and how i can get involved. Any one knowledgeable on legal and political views i can communicate with?

Highly unlikely, as unlikely as anything to get past congress. This case is the best chance and most researched case on getting rid of atleast part of this unconstitutional law. Many police unions have tried in the past and they got nowhere.

Please donate here. https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=5Wva2mEb630TrDJuh_CStNbQBCSw8QSJbzsZe5V0Lk yXvenb2H5gtRDM-ve&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d7283e7f01 84a5674430f290db9e9c846

Tell everyone that is interested in getting rid of this law about the Madison Society Foundation and this case and send them a link to this thread.

anthonyca
07-17-2012, 5:45 AM
I went to get a weapon, and got denied even though my record was expunged, and the incident was 11 years ago. Are there any lawyers that may be able to help me with presenting a case to a federal judge? Please PM me.
Thank you

In Southern California you want Jason Davis or Sean Brady (or one of the others with Chuck Michel).

In Northern California, Don Kilmer is the one I'd call.
This case is your best shot. You would be much better off donating to the Madison Society Foundation. Unless you are a multi, multi millionaire, there is no way an individual will get anywhere. This case is the result of 10 plus research and study of trial and error of some of the best gun lawyers in the country.

I am not trying to tell you not to go that route, I am just pointing out what I have seen.


And if it was a felony, expungement of a felony doesn't work for getting your firearms rights back unless the felony was a "wobbler" and was first reduced to a misdemeanor and then expunged.

In this case a misdemeanor is a lifetime ban also.

lordvader
07-21-2012, 12:39 AM
Is there going to be a booth at the Ontario Convention center and who is going to be at the booth?

lordvader
07-21-2012, 12:51 AM
Does anyone know the latest on enos v. holder?

odysseus
07-21-2012, 1:03 AM
IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

I am not sure if there is anything more to add to that. It is absolutely correct.

hoffmang
07-21-2012, 9:06 AM
Does anyone know the latest on enos v. holder?

Opening appellate brief is filed. In a few weeks the United State will file a reply brief and then a few weeks after that, Mr. Kilmer will file a final reply. Oral argument will be scheduled in 2-4 months.

-Gene

dad
07-21-2012, 5:54 PM
Opening appellate brief is filed. In a few weeks the United State will file a reply brief and then a few weeks after that, Mr. Kilmer will file a final reply. Oral argument will be scheduled in 2-4 months.

-Gene

Thank you for the updates!

lordvader
07-23-2012, 9:11 PM
At this moment what do we hope to expect from this outcome?

lordvader
07-24-2012, 9:15 PM
100yrs ago we had the depression and prohibition. The women lib movement said alcohol was the cause of domestic abuse. The popular politition of the time (just like Lautenberg) pushed it through congress. The point Prohibition came n went just like this will.

RJohnson
07-25-2012, 10:39 AM
For over 30 years I witnessed the carnage caused by domestic violence. During the first several years of my career we were unable to do much of anything to stop domestic violence. Not until the mid 1980's when born out of the blood of so many victims did things begin to turn around with the advent of New powerful domestic violence laws. While the lifetime ban on gun ownership is very unpopular with gun owners I believe that it will remain in place for the current and future victims of domestic violence.

curtisfong
07-25-2012, 11:03 AM
RJ: Do you ever post anything with actual content?

USMCM16A2
07-25-2012, 11:26 AM
Dear WhosJohnson,



Go away, drop dead. No one here gives 2 ****s what you think, you are an irritant. You just come here to grind, find a deep hole and drop in it. When you had the top of your head circumcised, it must have left quite a scar. Bye, bye drip, A2

HowardW56
07-25-2012, 11:27 AM
For over 30 years I witnessed the carnage caused by domestic violence. During the first several years of my career we were unable to do much of anything to stop domestic violence. Not until the mid 1980's when born out of the blood of so many victims did things begin to turn around with the advent of New powerful domestic violence laws. While the lifetime ban on gun ownership is very unpopular with gun owners I believe that it will remain in place for the current and future victims of domestic violence.

RJ: Do you ever post anything with actual content?

Curtisfong, if you haven't noticed RJohnson is a polite anti-gunner. He will post in a thread, always being civil, and disappear for a couple days when his posts are questioned. He never posts more than once in a thread, he just makes his comments and then disappears.

USMCM16A2
07-25-2012, 11:33 AM
RJ,


I see you are online, what little bits of wisdom do you propose now..........mmmmmmmmmm. A2

curtisfong
07-25-2012, 12:08 PM
Curtisfong, if you haven't noticed RJohnson is a polite anti-gunner. He will post in a thread, always being civil, and disappear for a couple days when his posts are questioned. He never posts more than once in a thread, he just makes his comments and then disappears.

Oh, I've noticed. Thing is, they aren't really arguments. They're invariably empty fluff.

curtisfong
07-25-2012, 12:12 PM
BTW this is my favorite bogus post from RJ

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8720203#post8720203

The guy is a laugh riot.

HowardW56
07-25-2012, 12:12 PM
Oh, I've noticed. Thing is, they aren't really arguments. They're invariably empty fluff.

Agreed... Really, he (or she) is just a harmless mild annoyance... (Similar to a Zit)

lordvader
07-25-2012, 9:14 PM
Dont affend the zit. I would call him ur daily bowel movement. Now thats fitting annoyance cause that you can flush and forget it!

mobileglass
08-01-2012, 10:42 AM
You cant throw a blanket over everyone. Try defining the terms! Domestic; that has a clear definition. Violence; define this! Battery can be just simple unwanted touching if applied strictly. How is that violence!? If the DA's in Ca cant or wont convict on felony charges, how is that EVERYONE else's problem by blanket restricting firearm ownership.
Second, if you are convicted of a battery that is not domestic in nature you still suffer the ten year ban, but because it is not considered DV you can return to those liberties! However, if it is considered DV you cant? Also, in most cases it is a he said/she said story, guy doesn't get benefit of the doubt with the Police who are biased as can be, or even the liberty of innocent before guilty from 12 jury members who automatically think the defendant must be guilty if he/she is on trial, which jury is usually composed of women because the DA doesnt want a fair fight and kicks off the men and the Judge allows the DA to drag out these vague battery claims with no sign of injury, biased family members as witnesses, and once again, a jury of not your peers to listen to the over-dramatic story of why they should strictly interpret PC243 and convict because "that is the law."
Point being, if you're such a great prosecutor do your job and get the felony conviction!

lordvader
08-02-2012, 9:23 PM
Cops are not bias they still take the guys in when the women have no marks and the men are the ones with the marks. Cops should also be smart and look who is the aggressor. Its easy to convict tha men, Because who's going to believe that a 110LB girl/ woman was beating up a man twice her own weight! Justice is blind alright to the truth. Equal under the law i dont think so!

anthonyca
08-05-2012, 9:27 AM
Cops are not bias they still take the guys in when the women have no marks and the men are the ones with the marks. Cops should also be smart and look who is the aggressor. Its easy to convict tha men, Because who's going to believe that a 110LB girl/ woman was beating up a man twice her own weight! Justice is blind alright to the truth. Equal under the law i dont think so!

People need to get past this "marks" theory. California law and jury instruction say "the least touching", even through clothes is battery. The touching need not, and need not be intended to cause pain, injury, or intimidation. I have posted jury instructions and case law in the past.

Say you get in an argument with your spouse. You ever so slightly touch your spouse to be a smart alec. Under California law and jury instruction, you must be convicted. Most people can't believe this so they talk to the police and talk themselves right into a federal lifetime ban on their own civil rights!

Get this "marks" crap out of your head.

lordvader
08-06-2012, 9:56 PM
I agree with you but i was trying to make a point on mobileglass's post. You are right we need to get past "marks" just like the politicians need to get past on "Giving wife beaters their guns back" and see that Lautenberg amendment is unconstitutional. And yet they can't! Only way to beat them is vote them out. The problem we face is who to trust with our liberties. I believe our government has forgotten that they represent us and not the other way around. They need to be unbias in running this country and not make their personal views ours. We need to do our part most of all so this doesn't go any further.

anthonyca
08-07-2012, 7:03 PM
I agree with you but i was trying to make a point on mobileglass's post. You are right we need to get past "marks" just like the politicians need to get past on "Giving wife beaters their guns back" and see that Lautenberg amendment is unconstitutional. And yet they can't! Only way to beat them is vote them out. The problem we face is who to trust with our liberties. I believe our government has forgotten that they represent us and not the other way around. They need to be unbias in running this country and not make their personal views ours. We need to do our part most of all so this doesn't go any further.

I apologize if it sounded as my rant was directed at you. Unfortunately we won't get anywhere in our current situation with voting. We do need to work on voting in politicians who respect our rights, but that is not likely to happen. This case is the best chance that has ever come along.

shocknm
08-09-2012, 12:03 PM
Bump - Can someone post a copy of the optional reply brief, if one was filed?

Thanks

lordvader
08-09-2012, 7:10 PM
hi antonyca do you know anything new yet about the case or still waiting?

shocknm
08-10-2012, 6:01 PM
Very nicely laid out timeline of Enos vs. Holder, with docs embedded:

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/enosvholder/

Latest optional reply brief not added to the timeline yet (if one was even filed)

Man, it's been close to two years since the original complaint was filed... it sure does grind slow.

lordvader
08-15-2012, 9:13 PM
does anyone have any updates on the case thus far?

MudCamper
08-21-2012, 5:04 PM
So assuming this results in a win, can anyone give an educated guess as to how long that will take? And what happens at that point? Does the question get removed from the form 4473 or is it just no longer used as a reason to deny? And how long will that process take?

Sorry for the impossible to answer question (how long) but I've referred many people to this thread who are in this situation, and this is always the question...

dad
08-21-2012, 8:05 PM
So assuming this results in a win, can anyone give an educated guess as to how long that will take? And what happens at that point? Does the question get removed from the form 4473 or is it just no longer used as a reason to deny? And how long will that process take?

Sorry for the impossible to answer question (how long) but I've referred many people to this thread who are in this situation, and this is always the question...

What question on 4473 are you referring too?

Gray Peterson
08-21-2012, 8:43 PM
So assuming this results in a win, can anyone give an educated guess as to how long that will take? And what happens at that point? Does the question get removed from the form 4473 or is it just no longer used as a reason to deny? And how long will that process take?

Sorry for the impossible to answer question (how long) but I've referred many people to this thread who are in this situation, and this is always the question...

The core challenge is to get the ATFE to honor the restoration process in California. The problem is that ATFE does not honor the right to bear arms as a "civil right" as spoken of in the restoration law, only voting, serving on the jury, and holding political office. This litigation is to get the courts to recognize the RKBA as a separate and distinct civil rights for the purposes of the restoration statute.

shocknm
08-21-2012, 8:48 PM
#11i

http://www.atf.gov/forms/firearms/

MudCamper
08-22-2012, 8:36 AM
What question on 4473 are you referring too?

11.i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

The core challenge is to get the ATFE to honor the restoration process in California. The problem is that ATFE does not honor the right to bear arms as a "civil right" as spoken of in the restoration law, only voting, serving on the jury, and holding political office. This litigation is to get the courts to recognize the RKBA as a separate and distinct civil rights for the purposes of the restoration statute.

So assuming a win, then a person could answer no on that question?

And again, does anybody have any educated guesses on the timeline of this case?

dad
08-22-2012, 11:13 AM
#11i

http://www.atf.gov/forms/firearms/

11.i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?



So assuming a win, then a person could answer no on that question?

And again, does anybody have any educated guesses on the timeline of this case?

Have you read Exception to 11c and 11i? Also, Question 11i, Definition of Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence? Both of these are on page 4, of the 4473!

lordvader
08-22-2012, 5:39 PM
But how can this help in this matter?

dad
08-22-2012, 6:00 PM
What is the "misdemeanor" Penal Code for conviction of Domestic Violence?

dad
08-22-2012, 6:11 PM
The core challenge is to get the ATFE to honor the restoration process in California. The problem is that ATFE does not honor the right to bear arms as a "civil right" as spoken of in the restoration law, only voting, serving on the jury, and holding political office. This litigation is to get the courts to recognize the RKBA as a separate and distinct civil rights for the purposes of the restoration statute.
Then why would the ATF site, have this in print on their site?

14 Q: Is an individual who has been pardoned, or whose conviction was expunged or set aside, or whose civil rights have been restored, considered convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

No, as long as the pardon, expungement, or restoration does not expressly provide that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html

s4alex
08-22-2012, 6:17 PM
What is the "misdemeanor" Penal Code for conviction of Domestic Violence?


PC 243e is for Battery

PC 273.5 is for Violence.

If I am off, I am sure some one will correct.

mobileglass
08-22-2012, 9:16 PM
Both are considered battery, and both are considered violence. It is interesting one might think felony would constitute or infer violence; and this is why I suggest defining "Violence" in the Ca Penal Code

PC 243e is for Battery

PC 273.5 is for Violence.

If I am off, I am sure some one will correct.

dad
08-26-2012, 10:14 AM
Cops are not bias they still take the guys in when the women have no marks and the men are the ones with the marks. Cops should also be smart and look who is the aggressor. Its easy to convict tha men, Because who's going to believe that a 110LB girl/ woman was beating up a man twice her own weight! Justice is blind alright to the truth. Equal under the law i dont think so!

People need to get past this "marks" theory. California law and jury instruction say "the least touching", even through clothes is battery. The touching need not, and need not be intended to cause pain, injury, or intimidation. I have posted jury instructions and case law in the past.

Say you get in an argument with your spouse. You ever so slightly touch your spouse to be a smart alec. Under California law and jury instruction, you must be convicted. Most people can't believe this so they talk to the police and talk themselves right into a federal lifetime ban on their own civil rights!

Get this "marks" crap out of your head.
Just saying a wrong word can get you in trouble.

A much over looked and unspoken of Calif.Penal Code!

422. (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own
safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished
by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.

(b) For purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any
spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related
by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the
prior six months, regularly resided in the household.

(c) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited
to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax
machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning
as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of
the United States Code.

M107A1
09-08-2012, 11:39 AM
I found the response brief that was filed yesterday by appellees in another thread on MD Shooters posted by "Krucam". Thanks Krucam for the timely post.

Westerner
09-08-2012, 5:38 PM
I don't know why this case below wasn't brought up upon for the Enos plaintiffs.

UNITED STATES v. WEGRZYN



UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald John WEGRZYN, Defendant-Appellee.



No. 00-1712.

Argued April 25, 2002. -- October 03, 2002
Before: DAUGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges;  ECONOMUS, District Judge.*

Timothy P. VerHey (argued and briefed), Asst. U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.Paul L. Nelson (argued and briefed), Federal Public Defenders Office, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

In this appeal by the government, we are asked to resolve what appears to be a misfit between state and federal law involving the regulation of firearms in the possession of persons found guilty of domestic violence.   Because we find the dilemma unresolvable in light of the relevant provisions in Michigan law and our cases interpreting them, we are compelled to affirm the judgment of the district court, which held that defendant Ronald Wegrzyn's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) cannot stand.   See United States v. Wegrzyn, 106 F.Supp.2d 959 (W.D.Mich.2000).

The case comes to us in a somewhat unusual procedural posture.   Following his arrest for possession of a firearm after previously being convicted for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of § 922(g)(9), Wegrzyn agreed to a unique plea arrangement with the federal prosecutors.   Because of the existence of “extenuating circumstances” in the case, the parties asked the court to take the defendant's plea of guilty to the weapons charge under advisement for a period of 18 months.   Pursuant to the plea bargain, the district judge agreed that he would reject the plea after 18 months if the defendant had complied with all imposed conditions of his release.   Furthermore, the government agreed to move at that point for dismissal of the charges against Wegrzyn.   Unfortunately, the defendant failed to live up to his end of the bargain and, as a result, the government sought revocation of the grace period and timely sentencing on the underlying offense.   Instead of granting the request of the assistant United States attorney, however, the district judge expressed his concern about the legal basis for the firearms conviction and eventually ruled that the federal conviction could not stand.   Consequently, the court vacated the guilty plea and ordered Wegrzyn released from custody immediately.

In reaching his conclusion in this matter, the district judge recognized that the statutory provision in § 922(g)(9) that prohibits possession of a firearm by any person “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is not absolute.   Rather, the court noted, the prohibition is subject to certain limited exceptions listed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), which provides:

A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

Id. (emphasis added).

Relevant to this appeal is the unusual impact of M.C.L.A. § 168.758b, which strips from misdemeanants their core civil right to vote only “while confined” in a correctional facility.1  Thus, a person confined in Michigan for misdemeanor domestic violence, a crime punishable by incarceration for up to 93 days, see M.C.L.A. § 750.81(2), would have his or her civil rights restored immediately upon release, by operation of law, and would, therefore, be exempt from the prohibitions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).

For the reasons articulated by this court in United States v. Cassidy, 899 F.2d 543 (6th Cir.1990), and Hampton v. United States, 191 F.3d 695 (6th Cir.1999),2 the district court further determined that misdemeanants convicted of domestic violence in Michigan who were not sentenced to periods of incarceration should also be able to possess firearms upon completion of their sentences of probation or other punishments.   Otherwise, noted the district court, the untenable situation would occur in which an individual who presumably committed a more egregious offense justifying incarceration would nevertheless be allowed-upon completion of the jail sentence-to possess a firearm, while another misdemeanant whose transgression did not merit such severe punishment would be treated more harshly at the conclusion of a more lenient punishment.

On appeal, the government contends that the district court's analysis both ignores the plain language of the controlling statutes and compels an “absurd result” at odds with the clear intent of Congress and of the Michigan legislature.   In fact, however, the district court's ruling in this matter actually gives effect to the exception crafted by Congress and to the peculiarities of Michigan criminal law.   In enacting 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), Congress chose to allow the states themselves to dictate the parameters of the statutory exception by recognizing the differences among state laws concerned with loss of civil rights upon conviction for certain offenses.   Consequently, the Michigan legislature itself, by choosing to strip even misdemeanants of a core civil right, created the problem now facing the frustrated federal prosecutors.   Indeed, had Michigan lawmakers, like almost all other state legislatures throughout the country, chosen to treat individuals guilty of lesser crimes (misdemeanors) less severely than felons and not stripped those individuals of their right to vote, the problem presented in this case by the later restoration of that right would never have arisen.

In short, it is the peculiar interplay between the relevant federal statutes, Michigan state legislation, and Sixth Circuit precedent that has resulted in a legal conclusion that here permits a statutory exception to swallow the intended rule.   Although such a result may not be palatable to many, it is far from “absurd” because, besides being mandated by applicable law, it also gives effect to the Congressional intent to allow states to have input in the definition of the parameters of the crime, and gives effect to the expressed intent of the Michigan legislature.3  Ironically, the Michigan populace is now forced to sacrifice some of its collective security only because of the state legislature's decision to impose-in one aspect, at least-the same penalty to all persons convicted of offenses against the state, regardless of the seriousness of the charge.

In an attempt to circumvent this result, the government also argues that loss of voting rights under M.C.L.A. § 168.758b is not a loss of civil rights as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(B)(ii).   However, in Hampton, 191 F.3d at 699, we have already relied upon M.C.L.A. § 168.758b in noting that Michigan law provides for the loss and the later regaining of the right to vote for purposes of the federal felon-in-possession statute.   We see no legitimate reason to abandon that view now in this instance.

Finally, the government contends that because 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) refers to a criminal defendant's loss of civil rights, the loss of only a single one of the major civil rights of voting, serving on a jury, and holding public office is not sufficient to trigger application of that provision.   Again, our decision in Hampton forecloses the result in this case.   In Hampton, the loss of only a single civil right was considered sufficient to bar firearms use.   It seems apparent that the same rule must apply here.

As a result, in light of Congress's deference to states' treatment of the disabilities associated with criminal convictions, and Michigan's own stripping of the right to vote from convicted misdemeanants, we are-reluctantly-forced to conclude that, upon successful completion of his probationary sentence, Ronald Wegrzyn is no longer considered ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).   The judgment of the district court in this matter is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.  In relevant part, M.C.L.A. § 168.758b provides:A person who ․ has been legally convicted and sentenced for a crime for which the penalty imposed is confinement in jail or prison shall not vote, offer to vote, or be permitted to vote at an election while confined.

2.  Both Cassidy and Hampton involved interpretations of the analogous provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), dealing with the restoration of civil rights of felons, rather than misdemeanants.

3.  As explained by the district court in this matter:[W]hile Congress was aware that in most states persons convicted of misdemeanor offenses do not lose their civil rights, Congress allowed for the possibility that some states may actually strip misdemeanants of their civil rights.   Hence, the parenthetical stating, “(if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense).”  18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii).   This construction is supported by the comments of Senator Lautenberg, the chief sponsor of the legislation:Mr. President, another new provision in the final agreement clarifies that a conviction will not lead to a firearm disability if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is for an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored.   This language mirrors similar language in current law that applies to those convicted of felonies.I would note that the language on civil rights restoration, as it has been applied in the past, and as it should be interpreted in the future, refers only to major civil rights, such as the right to vote, to hold public office, and to serve on a jury.   Loss of these rights generally does not flow from a misdemeanor conviction, and so this language is probably irrelevant to most, if not all, of those offenders covered because of the new ban ․.142 Cong. Rec. S11877-78 (1996) (statement of Sen. Lautenberg) (emphasis added).   Thus Congress expressly contemplated the situation where a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may be outside the scope of § 922(g)(9) because the state's law provides for the loss and restoration of a misdemeanant's civil rights.Wegrzyn, 106 F.Supp.2d at 962-63.

DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge.

tabrisnet
09-08-2012, 7:57 PM
Among other things, that's not binding precedent (different circuits). I don't know why the plaintiff did not bring this case in argument. Could be a reason it's not applicable, _maybe_ they want the circuit split. That would allow SCOTUS to intervene. Assuming we believe that SCOTUS will rule in our favour.

tabrisnet
09-08-2012, 8:02 PM
Also worth noting... the Michigan case specifically was decided based on the fact that in fact, the defendant (criminal case) had had his civil rights forfeited and subsequently restored. Enos is complaining that b/c they never lost their civil rights, they can't get them restored, and thus cannot get their 2A rights...
Or alternately, that their 2A rights should be considered civil rights in this context, and that the state did restore them, but the Federal gov't is not recognizing this restoration.

tabrisnet
09-08-2012, 8:08 PM
Upon reading the Enos PDF,I find it likely that this will be appealed, specifically b/c it seems to not take Heller seriously, and also avoids the (arguable in my opinion, but well worth arguing) ex post facto component of Lautenberg.

shocknm
09-09-2012, 3:10 PM
No jam today.

tabrisnet
09-09-2012, 7:40 PM
Hey... I didn't get my jam yesterday either!

anthonyca
09-09-2012, 8:30 PM
The government is using their standard no claim for relief, since a gun shop fallowing the instructions of a 4473 is not a "denial" according to the government.

What a crock. You are denied for all of these reasons.................... but you can't sue us or get your rights recognized because you are not denied. IE in jail or arrested.

Did the government try this with Mc Donald or Heller?

mobileglass
09-18-2012, 5:12 PM
Anthonyca,

Didn't they just change the instructions from
"have you been convicted with ten years of domestic violence"
to
"have you ever been convicted of domestic violence"

besides if you answer no they still will deny.
I tried to purchase and I have the letter of denial which they based on Title 18 restriction
Where is Roger B Taney when u need him!

Al Norris
09-22-2012, 5:31 AM
Yesterday, Sept 21st, Donald Kilmer filed the reply brief. This completes the briefing schedule and we now await assignment of a date for oral arguments.

For those interested, this final brief is perhaps the best writing that I have read, from Don. He deftly lays out the case for CA law to restore a right and lays waste to the Feds arguments that the only rights they have to acknowledge are voting, jury and public office.

But this is the 9th Circuit, and I wholly expect them to manufacture a way around the arguments presented by the appellants/plaintiffs.

anthonyca
09-22-2012, 6:03 AM
Yesterday, Sept 21st, Donald Kilmer filed the reply brief. This completes the briefing schedule and we now await assignment of a date for oral arguments.

For those interested, this final brief is perhaps the best writing that I have read, from Don. He deftly lays out the case for CA law to restore a right and lays waste to the Feds arguments that the only rights they have to acknowledge are voting, jury and public office.

But this is the 9th Circuit, and I wholly expect them to manufacture a way around the arguments presented by the appellants/plaintiffs.

Thanks for the update Al. I can't wait to read the brief.


What do you think about my question on standing a couple of posts above?

shocknm
09-22-2012, 6:15 AM
Eagerly waiting for someone to post the reply brief !

krucam
09-22-2012, 7:32 AM
Eagerly waiting for someone to post the reply brief !

I'm "capped" for my uploads here...the Enos reply brief is at MDS if someone is so inclined...
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=55440&page=5

anthonyca
09-22-2012, 8:54 AM
I'm "capped" for my uploads here...the Enos reply brief is at MDS if someone is so inclined...
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=55440&page=5

Thank you!

anthonyca
09-22-2012, 6:26 PM
Update.



Thank you Krucam!

lordvader
09-27-2012, 9:20 PM
Anyone have news thus far?

DenaliPark
09-28-2012, 7:13 PM
The "crime" is any touching, no matter how slight,wether it was or was not intended to cause pain or gain an advantage. You lightly toss the remote at your spouse who was complaining about you watching the game, bam your gun life is over.

My brother was banned for tossing milk on his "ahh" wife....

mobileglass
09-30-2012, 3:56 PM
DenaliPark, et al.,

Indeed, "violence" needs a separate definition apart from "domestic" relationship

Are these radical anti-Constitutionalist not trying to create felons of everyone to secure their anti-gun movement.....!!!!

lordvader
10-01-2012, 5:55 PM
It appears that way. Sad though.

bayjed
10-09-2012, 10:41 PM
There are also many subject to this ban whose only real crime was having a relationship with a woman with a personality disorder during a period of zero tollerance for domestic violence. There are personality disorders in which false claims of abuse are very common. These are not violent men. they are men who maybe took a deal to try to move on and keep their family intact. I think this is true in a large percentage of cases.

dad
10-11-2012, 2:04 PM
There are also many subject to this ban whose only real crime was having a relationship with a woman with a personality disorder during a period of zero tollerance for domestic violence. There are personality disorders in which false claims of abuse are very common. These are not violent men. they are men who maybe took a deal to try to move on and keep their family intact. I think this is true in a large percentage of cases.

This has happened, to who knows how many men! Take a deal, was the ****tie end of the stick! I let her scare and intimidate me into taking the District Attorneys deal! I didn't have to serve any jail time. The thought of going to jail, scared the living hell out of me! I never had been arrested, or had any legal trouble in my life! Just about every day, I wish I had taken it too trial!

lordvader
10-11-2012, 9:34 PM
How close are we to getting things changed?

SunTzu
10-18-2012, 8:37 AM
Filed on 10-3-12 by the Feds. http://www.madison-society.org/pdfs/enos-v-holder.pdf
I have only skimmed but I am amazed that the Feds quote Skoien saying Ca has a restoration method and plaintiffs have failed to argue that 1023.4 doesn't restore their rights.

Lex Arma
10-18-2012, 8:59 AM
Filed on 10-3-12 by the Feds. http://www.madison-society.org/pdfs/enos-v-holder.pdf
I have only skimmed but I am amazed that the Feds quote Skoien saying Ca has a restoration method and plaintiffs have failed to argue that 1023.4 doesn't restore their rights.

please recheck your date. that is trial court filing from 2011!

SunTzu
10-18-2012, 9:01 AM
Holy cow I'm getting old. My apologies. Keep up the good work; and can you recommend some good reading glasses?

chris1911
10-18-2012, 10:14 AM
Holy cow I'm getting old. My apologies. Keep up the good work; and can you recommend some good reading glasses?

http://www.pacificcoastsunglasses.com/KDs-Readerz/products/11/

mobileglass
10-24-2012, 4:15 PM
Don K,

Why does the argument seem to keep changing and narrowing down in scope over this whole process. It seems it would evolve, which essentially it is, but not so much with an overall argument over the broad aspect of Constitutionality. Each new document is radically different from the next! It seems weak when the original claims are not included in the newest briefs; it is as if you're reaching for something to hold on to, as if the case is drowning.
IMO!

2ASupporter
12-02-2012, 8:19 AM
Are there any further updates to this case?

M107A1
12-03-2012, 6:42 PM
Are there any further updates to this case?

My guess is that it is going to be at least a few more months before a court date is even set on the calender.

lordvader
12-07-2012, 7:14 PM
Why is it taking so long to set a date?

M107A1
12-11-2012, 7:02 PM
Why is it taking so long to set a date?

It seems like this is a typical timeline for an appeal case. At this point, nothing out of the ordinary.

speleogist
12-11-2012, 7:28 PM
Had a ex i was still seeing while she had another guy. He got pissed. She lied and said i was stalking her. He told her to get a R.O.

She goes to file, clerk TELLS HER write down he hit you! She said he didn't. CLERK SAYS write it anyway, its easier to win that way.

I go to court with all kinds of proof, like her love letters to me during the time i'm supposedly stalking her, friends who saw her come over to my house, etc.

Didnt matter. FEMALE judge grants RO


I think you're bending the truth with this one.

bayjed
12-12-2012, 8:11 PM
Firearm restrictions on RO's is entirely different issue as well. I am not saying it is right when they are giving them out so easily, but he can stay the hell away from her and when the RO expires he gets his guns back. A lifetime ban over a misdemeanor that is over 10 years old that has been dismissed by the court is an entirely different degree of unfairness. Especialy when you consider the fact that if someone is convicted of a felony DV charge, for something truely violent, that they are able to restore their rights. Yet, someone who grabs the keys out of their spouses hands gets banned for life.

M107A1
12-15-2012, 5:08 PM
First, my condolences to the victims of recent shootings. Now there is an outcry for strict gun control in light of the shootings. So far I haven't heard anyone point out that the shooter in the Connecticut shooting was only 20 years old and not even eligible to own a gun legally in Connecticut. It appears that people are attacking things like mental health and not looking into how he got his hands on the guns in the first place. Petitions have been filed for more strict gun policies and regulations but it is one thing to try to implement gun control and another thing to try to gauge how likely a person is to allow the gun that he/she purchases to end up in the hands of someone who is mentally ill or not even able to legally purchase a gun (child endangerment). The likely outcome of all of this is that there may be more gun control which may make it harder for many 2nd amendment cases that are currently being litigated to have judgements in favor of the 2nd amendment.

M107A1
12-28-2012, 4:17 PM
Fisher v. Kealoha which is currently being litigated in the 9th Circuit as well is a similar case to Enos v. Holder that involves intepretation of the Lautenberg Amendment (harassment as opposed to an actual act of physical violence). The arguments in the case seems to be very similar to Don Kilmer's argument in Enos v. Holder.

BigBamBoo
01-20-2013, 8:09 AM
Can someone clarify this for me?
I ran into someone I know in a local gun store buying a shotgun the other day. He was convicted of FELONY DV in 2000 or 2001 during a messy divorce and child custody battle.

I asked him how he was able to purchase a firearm and he told me he had had his original DV charge "expunged" ( 17(b) and 1203.4 ) right after he completed his probation and since it was over 10 years he can now buy guns again.

????....Am I missing something? Is the Lautenberg Amendment strictly for misdemeanor DV...meaning it is BETTER to get a felony DV because you can restore your gun rights via 17(b) and 1203.4, or did he maybe get convicted of some other type of felony wobbler and only thinks it was a DV conviction?

Thanks

mobileglass
01-20-2013, 10:31 AM
If it was classified as a DV relationship, he should not be able to, even if he was allowed to plea down to a misdemeanor; especially with Title 18 in force by the states that chose to enforce federal laws. However, there seems to be something missing in your info. that would help clarify the technicalities of these ambiguous and unconstitutional laws, specifically in this individual question.
Also they are different codes and 17b is not a subsection of 1203.4.
1203.4 is for misdemeanors.
17b is for felonies that will be reduced to a misdemeanor.
If the Felony conviction had DV elements, possibly it was dropped to a misdemeanor that is not subject to DV restrictions. For example it could be reduced to a PC section not associated with DV, yet still a misdemeanor.
From what I gather, You would first follow the PC 17b guidelines and then see if you are still restricted by the plea and need to use 1203.4.
1203.4 specifically states that its relief does not reinstate the right to own or possess a firearm. So, basically the answer to your question is, YES. A blatant attack on misdemeanors. One person at a time restriction is so easy to enforce, it specifically was more intended to disarm blacks; those with high crime rates, etc.
This explains why the ENOS V HOLDER case has gone so far; and IMO will end up at the Supreme Court; because no other justices in any court will rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of this law that passed so UN-democraticlly in 1994-1996 by Senator Lautenberg and the whole complacent US Senate, US President, and especially the US House that allowed their bull to be amended in the Senate and not sent back to the House with MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS such as the Title 18 inclusion.
I'm getting fired up......

Maybe we can pass a law to upgrade MCDV to Felonies then 17b it so we can restore this right to own a firearm!

anthonyca
01-21-2013, 7:58 AM
If it was classified as a DV relationship, he should not be able to, even if he was allowed to plea down to a misdemeanor; especially with Title 18 in force by the states that chose to enforce federal laws. However, there seems to be something missing in your info. that would help clarify the technicalities of these ambiguous and unconstitutional laws, specifically in this individual question.
Also they are different codes and 17b is not a subsection of 1203.4.
1203.4 is for misdemeanors.
17b is for felonies that will be reduced to a misdemeanor.
If the Felony conviction had DV elements, possibly it was dropped to a misdemeanor that is not subject to DV restrictions. For example it could be reduced to a PC section not associated with DV, yet still a misdemeanor.
From what I gather, You would first follow the PC 17b guidelines and then see if you are still restricted by the plea and need to use 1203.4.
1203.4 specifically states that its relief does not reinstate the right to own or possess a firearm. So, basically the answer to your question is, YES. A blatant attack on misdemeanors. One person at a time restriction is so easy to enforce, it specifically was more intended to disarm blacks; those with high crime rates, etc.
This explains why the ENOS V HOLDER case has gone so far; and IMO will end up at the Supreme Court; because no other justices in any court will rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of this law that passed so UN-democraticlly in 1994-1996 by Senator Lautenberg and the whole complacent US Senate, US President, and especially the US House that allowed their bull to be amended in the Senate and not sent back to the House with MULTIPLE AMENDMENTS such as the Title 18 inclusion.
I'm getting fired up......

Maybe we can pass a law to upgrade MCDV to Felonies then 17b it so we can restore this right to own a firearm!

QFT.

This issue needs to be fixed. Look for misdemeanor lifetime bans to be secretly snuck into "must pass" bills in the near future.

anthonyca
01-28-2013, 9:05 PM
Don Kilmer will be speaking in San Jose this Thursday.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10353319#post10353319

randian
01-29-2013, 10:15 AM
This issue needs to be fixed. Look for misdemeanor lifetime bans to be secretly snuck into "must pass" bills in the near future.
You think they're going to make misdemeanors, generally, be disqualifying acts?

anthonyca
01-29-2013, 4:02 PM
Was reading up on expungements and found it interesting that New Jersey allows for expungement of misdemeanor DV convictions to restore 2nd A rights.

Do you have a link?

anthonyca
01-29-2013, 4:03 PM
You think they're going to make misdemeanors, generally, be disqualifying acts?

Why wouldn't they try?

getlost
01-30-2013, 2:29 PM
Do you have a link?

I stand corrected anthonyca.

The federal law still applies even if expunged.

randian
01-30-2013, 3:16 PM
Why wouldn't they try?
I didn't think them to be that crazy, but yes, you're right they could indeed try.

mobileglass
01-31-2013, 9:57 PM
I stand corrected anthonyca.

The federal law still applies even if expunged.


If State law says your rights are returned then Title 18 can not and does not apply. That is how they are interpreting it as of @04. Interesting that Congress says nothing about how their laws are interpreted.
If you posted something false you should remove it!

anthonyca
01-31-2013, 10:03 PM
If State law says your rights are returned then Title 18 can not and does not apply. That is how they are interpreting it as of @04. Interesting that Congress says nothing about how their laws are interpreted.
If you posted something false you should remove it!

That is precisely the argument in Enos. California returned 2nd amendment rights and the feds are saying FU. I went to hear Don Kilmer speak tonight and he brought up that fact.

dad
02-03-2013, 1:00 PM
Do you have a link?

Read this one carefully, from Tennessee, if you haven't read it already!

anthonyca
02-08-2013, 9:34 PM
Read this one carefully, from Tennessee, if you haven't read it already!

Maybee I missed it, I am really tired. How does that pertain to Fed law?

monkeshine
02-09-2013, 12:54 AM
You think they're going to make misdemeanors, generally, be disqualifying acts?

They would make parking tickets disqualifying acts if they could.

acarlson270
02-09-2013, 7:42 AM
Looking around the Internet and it seems this topic has lost it's steam. Looks like all cards are being played in the Enos vs Holder case.

anthonyca
02-09-2013, 8:10 AM
Looking around the Internet and it seems this topic has lost it's steam. Looks like all cards are being played in the Enos vs Holder case.

This is the best case so far and it is being litigated by one of the best second amendment lawyers in the country. If you are interested, please donate to the Madison Society Foundation.

lordvader
02-09-2013, 1:23 PM
I would like to know how the guy with the DV buying the shotgun was able to buy his firearm. What did he file so he can do that?

mobileglass
02-09-2013, 5:40 PM
Maybee I missed it, I am really tired. How does that pertain to Fed law?


Because it seems Tennessee is not allowing Title 18 to be enforced in that state!

dad
02-10-2013, 12:12 PM
Maybee I missed it, I am really tired. How does that pertain to Fed law?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misdemeanor-domestic-violence.html#probation-before-judgement

I do not have extra money to attempt a gun purchase! I'm not going to buy "any gun", just to see if I can get a gun or not! $400.00 saved, but I have about $600.00 to go!

Plus I sent off for my record(rap sheet), I think it was $18.00 to get it! It states "dismissed"!

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks

scarville
02-10-2013, 7:42 PM
I didn't think them to be that crazy, but yes, you're right they could indeed try.
After that they will make too many traffic tickets a lifetime disqualification.

Freeway
02-11-2013, 1:11 PM
Because it seems Tennessee is not allowing Title 18 to be enforced in that state!

Then how does Tennessee handle the 4473 form?

dad
02-11-2013, 4:30 PM
Then how does Tennessee handle the 4473 form?

It's the same nation wide! Read my posts thru out this thread!!>>>I mistakingly put the same links in post #632, read the "top link"!




http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Khyber
02-11-2013, 4:40 PM
This is for the domestic violence misdemeanor ban to be reversed correct?

I had a buddy get his felony down to a misdemeanor during his early termination for probation; the felony charge was a wobbler, but the charge was also not a domestic violence charge. A month later the DOJ approved his dros and was a legal gun owner again.

lordvader
02-12-2013, 4:03 PM
Does anyone know what can be done so far? I've read two different issues of dv where a guy can still buy firearms in Ca.

anthonyca
02-18-2013, 8:44 AM
Does anyone know what can be done so far? I've read two different issues of dv where a guy can still buy firearms in Ca.

What are these instances?

lordvader
03-05-2013, 3:45 PM
Ive read BigBamBoo and one other on a person can still buy firearms after a dv charge.

lordvader
03-25-2013, 4:53 PM
Does anyone have an answer to my question?

mobileglass
04-23-2013, 8:33 PM
Ive already answered the Felony dismissal issue in earlier post and the other issue, just look back a page or two. What I want to know is if each state is following the FBI/ATF background check form, or doing their own instant check, like all states are suppose to have been doing already years ago. Waiting period is simply de facto cooling off period, but anyone needing immediate protection, in some states, have to wait for weeks!

just1965
04-30-2013, 10:47 AM
Can't find anything on the status of this case. Anyone know?

Al Norris
04-30-2013, 12:41 PM
That's because the case is waiting to be scheduled for orals. The final reply brief was filed last Sept. 21st. No action by the CA9 since then.

anthonyca
05-06-2013, 1:14 AM
That's because the case is waiting to be scheduled for orals. The final reply brief was filed last Sept. 21st. No action by the CA9 since then.

Someone needs to kick the court system in the @$$.

sharxbyte
05-06-2013, 6:34 AM
If we overturn the ban for misdemeanors, is overturning the ban for felonies (nonviolent) any closer?

anthonyca
05-07-2013, 8:48 PM
If we overturn the ban for misdemeanors, is overturning the ban for felonies (nonviolent) any closer?

Chuck Shumer shot himself in the foot with his cutting the funding for the federal restoration of rights program. Now instead of individual cases going before a court or board, and having the chance to not have rights restored, we have the possibility of everyone in that situation having rights restored.

I would guess that someone will challenge that in the future. It must be done with the right plaintiff and attorney. If not, we will lose ground.

In the case of misdemeanor DV challenges, everyone I could find who lost, the plaintiff was still on probation or a multiple offender. I am talking about people who challenged the constitutionality of the law, not the technicality. (Hayes)

anthonyca
05-08-2013, 7:44 AM
Update that could impact people who plead to PC 242.

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=a05c173b63&e=46ea51d106

BigBamBoo
05-14-2013, 9:49 AM
I am wondering how this would effect folks who have a DV conviction: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=761867

So if MO says it will not be subject to FEDERAL anti-2A laws....does that mean if you live in MO and have a DV conviction that you can now buy and own guns?

2ASupporter
06-18-2013, 4:01 PM
Has anyone heard of any updates to this case?

HowardW56
06-18-2013, 4:40 PM
Has anyone heard of any updates to this case?

pending @ 9th Circuit...[Opening, Answering, and Reply briefs have been filed...]

walter181
07-01-2013, 4:30 PM
CA 9th Circuit shows the world how they really are just Political HACKS, and not a true equal justice for all court. They lift their stay on gay marriage within 48 hours due to political pressure, yet they continually drag this cases' process out.

Kinda sounds like the IRS dragging out for years the Tea Party Group applications for Tax Exempt status.

Shame, Shame, Shame!

anthonyca
07-08-2013, 4:06 AM
CA 9th Circuit shows the world how they really are just Political HACKS, and not a true equal justice for all court. They lift their stay on gay marriage within 48 hours due to political pressure, yet they continually drag this cases' process out.

Kinda sounds like the IRS dragging out for years the Tea Party Group applications for Tax Exempt status.

Shame, Shame, Shame!

I have though about this often. How can so many cases go all the way to judgment at SCOTUS while other civil rights cases are stuck in purgatory?

SunTzu
07-27-2013, 11:19 AM
An interesting concept from the 'fringe line forums'

So a 1203.4 expungement even if it specifically indicates restoration of gun rights is not recognized by the feds. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, a misdemeanor conviction does cause the loss of the right to "hold public office" as a Notary Public. This right can only be restored with expungement under 1203.4. Therefore this now would qualify the convicted individual to properly show that one of the 3 core civil rights was lost and restored, thus qualifying him to regain gun rights under Lautenberg.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.phpSo a 1203.4 expungement even if it specifically indicates restoration of gun rights is not recognized by the feds. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, a misdemeanor conviction does cause the loss of the right to "hold public office" as a Notary Public. This right can only be restored with expungement under 1203.4. Therefore this now would qualify the convicted individual to properly show that one of the 3 core civil rights was lost and restored, thus qualifying him to regain gun rights under Lautenberg.?p=5508451

Al Norris
07-27-2013, 4:32 PM
"fringe line forums" ????

Thank you for that bit of humor! ;)

(the correct link to the post is: #106 (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5508451&postcount=106) which is from this thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=447178))

anthonyca
07-29-2013, 5:05 AM
"fringe line forums" ????

Thank you for that bit of humor! ;)

(the correct link to the post is: #106 (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5508451&postcount=106) which is from this thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=447178))

Thank you for the link.

Anyone who posts that nobody should be dumb enough to have to fill out a PFEC to know of they can legally possess firearms should read that link.

otis_bartleh
07-31-2013, 9:01 AM
An interesting concept from the 'fringe line forums'

So a 1203.4 expungement even if it specifically indicates restoration of gun rights is not recognized by the feds. However, as I pointed out in my previous post, a misdemeanor conviction does cause the loss of the right to "hold public office" as a Notary Public. This right can only be restored with expungement under 1203.4. Therefore this now would qualify the convicted individual to properly show that one of the 3 core civil rights was lost and restored, thus qualifying him to regain gun rights under Lautenberg.

Very interesting. This seems like it would be a good argument in this case.

mobileglass
08-09-2013, 10:49 AM
To the real attorneys out there....

Since my conviction of 243(e)(1) in 2001, I have not been served with a notice to appear for jury duty (@ 13 years).....I would argue this constitutes a loss of "multiple" civil rights....and argument for restoration of gun rights, coupled with expungement and ten years passing......would anyone like to file such motion?

anthonyca
08-21-2013, 7:51 AM
To the real attorneys out there....

Since my conviction of 243(e)(1) in 2001, I have not been served with a notice to appear for jury duty (@ 13 years).....I would argue this constitutes a loss of "multiple" civil rights....and argument for restoration of gun rights, coupled with expungement and ten years passing......would anyone like to file such motion?

Does anyone know if the government cross references misdemeanor convictions when sending out jury summons?

shooting4life
08-21-2013, 12:27 PM
Does anyone know if the government cross references misdemeanor convictions when sending out jury summons?

The government does not cross refrence misdemeanor or felony convictions when sending out a jury summons.

One court in this state will not know what someone was convicted of in another court of those state without running a clets report. Juror information is usually taken from DMV and voter registration. So if you are on either of those lists you can get a summons, though you cannot serve on a jury but you must select the appropriate field on the summons (I have been convicted of a felony) and mail the form back to be excused.

JesseXXX
08-23-2013, 6:02 PM
What's the best case scenario.... And worst case scenario...?

mobileglass
08-26-2013, 1:02 PM
The government does not cross refrence misdemeanor or felony convictions when sending out a jury summons.

One court in this state will not know what someone was convicted of in another court of those state without running a clets report. Juror information is usually taken from DMV and voter registration. So if you are on either of those lists you can get a summons, though you cannot serve on a jury but you must select the appropriate field on the summons (I have been convicted of a felony) and mail the form back to be excused.

Its quite strange to receive these jury summons after age 18, up to age 23, then after conviction, no summons since 2001? It is highly suggestive that there is a cross reference; would someone convicted be biased and seek revenge; this must be the motivation, which they think no one will catch on to.
I highly suggest not disavowing this.

anthonyca
08-27-2013, 9:50 PM
Its quite strange to receive these jury summons after age 18, up to age 23, than after conviction, no summons since 2001? It is highly suggestive that there is a cross reference; would someone convicted be biased and seek revenge; this must be the motivation, which they think no one will catch on to.
I highly suggest not disavowing this.

I know someone in the same situation. He received a summons almost every year but has not had one in almost 10 years.

mobileglass
08-28-2013, 8:13 AM
I know someone in the same situation. He received a summons almost every year but has not had one in almost 10 years.

These are the motivations for why I began law school this year.
Title 18 needs squashed, 1203.1 needs amended, "domestic" and "violence" definitions need clarified, and especially this hidden agenda corruption of Constitutional rights needs repaired. Listen to Apple Co-founder Steve Wozniak speak about issues like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOWDwKLJAfo

shooting4life
08-28-2013, 11:16 AM
Its quite strange to receive these jury summons after age 18, up to age 23, then after conviction, no summons since 2001? It is highly suggestive that there is a cross reference; would someone convicted be biased and seek revenge; this must be the motivation, which they think no one will catch on to.
I highly suggest not disavowing this.

It is just random variation. If you flip a coin 100 times their will be times with a bunch of heads in a row then other times with a bunch of tails in a row. It does not mean anything, it is just the law of averages.

mobileglass
08-28-2013, 2:25 PM
It is just random variation. If you flip a coin 100 times their will be times with a bunch of heads in a row then other times with a bunch of tails in a row. It does not mean anything, it is just the law of averages.

If you flip that coin 100 times, statistically you should get a variation of 50/50! not 100 in a row
You cannot justify this with piecemeal math. You really think the law of averages gives you all for 5 years then nothing over 13 (18 years total).
If you are smart enough to do math this should "add up" for you much differently
BTW at the same address, where I have not received a jury summons for 13 years, before, during and now, two other members of the household with same last name, have received on average (law of averages :p) two per year.

stix213
08-28-2013, 2:43 PM
If you flip that coin 100 times, statistically you should get a variation of 50/50! not 100 in a row
You cannot justify this with piecemeal math. You really think the law of averages gives you all for 5 years then nothing over 13 (18 years total).
If you are smart enough to do math this should "add up" for you much differently
BTW at the same address, where I have not received a jury summons for 13 years, before, during and now, two other members of the household with same last name, have received on average (law of averages :p) two per year.

I recently had a jury summons earlier this year. Last one I had was in 1998. I am not in any way a prohibited person, or have had any DROS denials/delays, but had a 15 year gap between summons. So a few anecdotal 13 year gaps alone do not mean much.

SunTzu
08-28-2013, 6:07 PM
It's a pointless exercise. Arbitrary denial of rights is not a loss of right. The loss of rights has to be a matter of law. There is a few court cases that have discussed this. One was ACLU vs Ca over misdeamenents be denied right to vote while in jail.

flyer898
08-28-2013, 7:00 PM
There is a lot going on in this thread and a great deal of it is from misunderstanding how things really work. I am a prosecutor. I have tried a great many DV cases to a jury. I can tell you that were I a defense attorney I would be unlikely to advise a client to plead to any DV charge; it is usually better to take your chances with a jury. Of course, if you try to explain to the police you will make admissions a prosecutor will later use to hang you.

The first rule when you might be a suspect is: do not talk to the police. You might get arrested, but guess what? You were going to get arrested anyway. If you want to make a statement you can always make a statement later. After you have talked to your lawyer. If you say anything it should be along the lines of, I want to talk to my lawyer before making a statement. Then shut-up!

Juries are the best bull**** detectors ever invented. Most people do not have much first hand experience with juries and if they do it is from sitting on one. Those of you reading this who have served as a juror know what I am talking about. The other trial lawyers reading this also know what I am talking about. The rest of you are operating on second and third hand information or even worse, conjecture. I ALWAYS made it a point to talk to my jurors after a trial--no matter the verdict. There was always a lot they could teach me. I remember one time (in a DV case) I was told the only credible witness I put on the stand was the 10-year-old boy. I was okay with that because I sent the guy to prison for 4 years for being a felon in possession of a shotgun and I did not have the shotgun at trial.

If you are single be careful who you date. If there is a problem, talk to your lawyer. Then, perhaps, to the police. Remember I am a prosecutor and my favorite part of every police report is where the suspect tried to explain and thereby gave me important evidence.

Now to the main point of this thread. I agree completely that prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition based on a misdemeanor conviction is bad public policy and plain wrong! If the conduct is worthy of that kind of consequence it is worth of being a felony. Many DV statutes are felony wobblers and a felony conviction should not preclude reduction to a misdemeanor in an appropriate case and consequent restoration of firearm rights. I hope this lawsuit succeeds.

It is however an uphill fight. I re-read McDonald over the past two days. I was again especially impressed with Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. He really lays out the history of gun control as a racist initiative to disenfranchise minorities. At present we have something similar going on, except that the group targeted for disenfranchisement is the common man--those not members of the ruling oligarchy.

When one looks at the post Heller and post McDonald 2nd Amendment cases it is alarming how ready, and without any supporting analysis, courts are to uphold prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition based on misdemeanor convictions.

JesseXXX
08-28-2013, 11:15 PM
I just think it's unjust how a misdemeanor conviction NOT A FELONY can remove the right to bare arms.

mobileglass
08-29-2013, 7:09 AM
There is a lot going on in this thread and a great deal of it is from misunderstanding how things really work. . .
The other trial lawyers reading this also know what I am talking about. The rest of you are operating on second and third hand information or even worse, conjecture.. .
When one looks at the post Heller and post McDonald 2nd Amendment cases it is alarming how ready, and without any supporting analysis, courts are to uphold prohibiting possession of firearms and ammunition based on misdemeanor convictions.


However, are you even aware of how this "law" came into effect? A Postal bill in the House, is sent to the Senate that refuses to pass it also, then come amendments or riders that have no relation to the bill, such as Lautenberg's, and what do you know, it gets passed after numerous votes to not pass it; and does the House, the real standard of democracy get to vote on these amendments? NOPE. Clinton signs it 2 years later. There is some hypocrisy in your evaluation, mostly because you will not stand up for what you even call an unjust law and refuse to proceed with prosecution until this is repaired; you wouldnt jeopardize your job, nor would others; and you will likely take the orders to proceed to trial even if you know you shouldnt.

wolfwood
08-29-2013, 2:27 PM
Our country is founded upon the notion of ordered liberty. There must always be a Donald Kilmer to be liberty and a City attorney to represent order. As long as our courts remain neutral then the Republic is preserved. Similarly it is there must always be a sheriff, prosecutor and a defense attorney to advocate for the citizen and the state respectively. For the above poster to putting his moral scruples above duty would be the most unpatriotic act he could do. It would be absolutely fine for him to quit his job but as long as he has accepted the role he must carry out his duty in full. It is not his place to question the propriety of these laws as long as he remains a prosecutor. You may ask why our country has fallen into disarray, this is because our Courts have abandoned textualism and neutrality. Rather they have become a second legislature. That is the failing rather than a man performing his duty.

flyer898
08-30-2013, 7:25 AM
There is a valid point being made by each of the two previous posters. What ties their points together is the essence of the prosecutor's job. It is not to convict as many people as possible or file every case submitted. A prosecutor is charged with seeing that justice is done. That often means rejecting cases and from time to time it means dismissing a case. This is really beyond the scope of this thread.

A prosecutor has no control over the collateral consequences of a conviction, but neither should one fail to pursue a just case because of disagreement with the collateral consequences of conviction.

mobileglass
08-30-2013, 10:10 AM
There is a valid point being made by each of the two previous posters. What ties their points together is the essence of the prosecutor's job. It is not to convict as many people as possible or file every case submitted. A prosecutor is charged with seeing that justice is done. That often means rejecting cases and from time to time it means dismissing a case. This is really beyond the scope of this thread.

A prosecutor has no control over the collateral consequences of a conviction, but neither should one fail to pursue a just case because of disagreement with the collateral consequences of conviction.


It is not reasonably out of scope. The punishment exceeds the benefit of prosecution, because, it is as we will soon find out, unconstitutional.
And, the whole Felony wobbler issue "loop hole" argument is so ridiculous. File felony charges if you want this person to possibly lose liberties, don't create reverse discrimination and conceivably your own loop hole for wobblers by restricting firearms in DV cases for life, while similar battery cases are 10 years, or if filed as 242 still ten years, or if a felony, capable of being reduced to a misdemeanor that doesn't hold lifetime restriction and returns those rights back to a convicted/admitted felon. To say your just doing your job is arguably a bureaucratic cop-out that is ruining this country.
I see Missouri is standing up for states' rights just as SC did to start the Civil War. Someone has to stand up, and if you agree you all should stand up for your country instead of playing the cop-out because you either value your job more than liberties, or you think if it happens to you, you have knowledge to get out of the restriction, just like the San Francisco Sheriff, who I actually emailed and told him of these laws just in case he or his attorneys were not aware, because most people, even cops and attorneys are not aware. This is all within the scope of Enos!

JesseXXX
09-08-2013, 2:49 PM
When is the next court action date...?

Al Norris
09-09-2013, 5:11 AM
When is the next court action date...?

There are none, currently. We are waiting for the court to assign a date for orals.

1crash26
09-09-2013, 4:53 PM
Does anyone know what the update is if any as of todays date
on lifetime ban for misdemeaners that was filed by Donald Kilmer

anthonyca
09-24-2013, 8:11 PM
Does anyone know what the update is if any as of todays date
on lifetime ban for misdemeaners that was filed by Donald Kilmer

Justice delayed is justice denied. The courts move like molasses.

anthonyca
09-28-2013, 9:49 AM
Just bumping this thread and providing a link to donate to the cost if you feel this is important.

http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.html

Here is the main page of the Madison Society Foundation, they are responsible for getting this case going and your contributions would really help.

http://www.madison-society.org/chapters.html

Thank you to everyone who has donated or bumped this thread. The response from around the internet has been huge. This Lautenberg problem is huge and needs to be squashed.

mobileglass
10-02-2013, 10:29 PM
Anyone think the CA Attorney General will direct the Ca DOJ to not enforce Title 18? How will the State respond to Supreme Court upholding Shirley? Michel says Supreme Court wont be much interested. Makes me wonder how all this with Enos and the overall restrictions are going to play out. I think SCOTUS has to repair the ambiguities, else we will just hear how fed law trumps state law. Any thoughts?

Today Michel posted http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Justices-to-hear-gun-ban-case-4859451.php that SCOTUS will here a misdemeanor case involving a state question of restriction, but I cant but feel it will jump the gun on Enos and not FULLY address the issue of Title 18.

2. I've been sitting on this for quite some time. In regards to Shirley has anyone noticed the arbitrary application of Title 18 in Ca in regard to PC242?
The DOJ doesnt seem to enforce it for anyone prior to when Ca changed its laws in the early 90's. It presents two issues on its face: 1. The Ex-post Facto application for those with "MCDV" elements in a PC242 conviction pre-90's. 2. and, maybe they just cant enforce the 242 convictions because that would require requesting files and looking for the elements of domestic violence.
However, State Depts. or law enforcement will enforce it arbitrarily whenever it comes to their attention.

taperxz
10-05-2013, 3:35 PM
I really don't give a dam who this reply appliies to.

I was taken advantaged of to get a green card.

I served in the USMC upon returning from Kuwait my ex wife ha cheated on me.

I had no job an no where to turn.

She wanted to get her green card.

Bull****, I pushed her after she slammed a door on my 4 year old son , I hlelda back since I did not want to be the bad guy and I did not say anything about her beinng an illellgal allien **** you all. She sllammed a door on my son's hand.

I was taken in because I was the male **** you. I never spoke because I did not want my kids to grow up knowing their father turned his ex wife illegal crap in


I whish I had now I am the bad guy and she got her greencard and citizenship **** you all I put may live on the line I missed my son growing up to come back to a government who would punish me for seeing what I have fuclk you all

**** America that I love and will love for ever but being politically correct we
punish our our troops for the benefit of illegals

Going to stop now,

This is not the country I defended and I risked my life for fu America

:sweatdrop: :laugh:. Instead of blabbing like a blithering (fill in the blank) why don't look at this :http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=831530

seatech
10-12-2013, 8:48 PM
Enos !
As I see it if you can’t hold office as a Notary Public, then a core right has been denied/revoked then restored by 1203.4 (a) .
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/qualifications.htm
On the same page you will find
All applicants are required to disclose on their application any arrests for which trial is pending and all convictions. Convictions dismissed under Penal Code section1203.4 or 1203.4a must be disclosed. If you have any questions concerning the disclosure of convictions or arrests, contact the Secretary of State prior to signing the application.

Then I would further say that as a person convicted of MCDV also looses their 4 amendment rights while on probation.
As well as the obvious 10 year gun ban by California sure looks like a loss of rights and then restoration.

To sum it up, I count the loss of at least two civil liberties and one civil right (core civil rights as the government defines it ?) as to which all were taken away by the state and then restored by the state. Then to have all your sins wiped away by a 1203.4 (a) . Hmm, why is this so hard to understand, Holder?

Now SCOTUS ! wow a lot action..

Sorry this is my first post on the outstanding forum and I generally don’t post much in forums. I have been reading a lot and read the case on Enos.

Madison Society Contributor

donnie707
10-25-2013, 11:40 AM
can anyone answer this for me. back in 2005? I think, my wife and I had an argument. cops came, arrested me. went to court and they said I had to take a 52 week dm class. I took the class and they said that everything is cleared and the charges were expunged? does that mean I am allowed to buy a firearm? I was never on parole. I think they said charges would be dropped after I take the class. is there any way I can find out before I try to buy a firearm?

dave_cg
10-25-2013, 11:55 AM
Yes, there is a form you can sent in. I think it is the "Firearms Eligibility Check".
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/forms
Somebody will probably be along shortly to correct me if I am mistaken.

journeyman
10-28-2013, 4:21 PM
can anyone answer this for me. back in 2005? I think, my wife and I had an argument. cops came, arrested me. went to court and they said I had to take a 52 week dm class. I took the class and they said that everything is cleared and the charges were expunged? does that mean I am allowed to buy a firearm? I was never on parole. I think they said charges would be dropped after I take the class. is there any way I can find out before I try to buy a firearm?


NO! the dismissal you're talking about is the 1203.4(a) which is state. you won't pass a pfec. under federal law youre banned lifetime!

JesseXXX
11-08-2013, 11:56 PM
So basically... this is the only test case that can possibly change the DV 2nd Ammendment ban...? It still blows me away a misdemeanor can wipe a right away... Specially lke a DV case that was literally just yelling.... And yet a convicted child sex offender still can keep his 2nd rights WTF..?

SunTzu
11-18-2013, 2:27 PM
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/11/18/11-50107.pdf

US vs Chovan decided. Just made Kilmers case that much harder.

CCWFacts
11-18-2013, 3:11 PM
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/11/18/11-50107.pdf

US vs Chovan decided. Just made Kilmers case that much harder.

What a ruling. From my reading (IANAL) they are saying that the RKBA is not a civil right. If he had been convicted of felony DV, he would have lost his right to vote, and if that were then restored, he would count as having his civil rights restored and then he would be ok. They also said that under intermediate scrutiny, Congress can do whatever it feels like basically.

My feeling is the courts are just hostile to the RKBA and will do everything to read it out of the constitution. I wish I could do that with contracts I don't like. "Yeah, I know I have a contract with my bank that I have to pay my credit card bill, but that line on my bill, where I spend $50k on a new Purdey shotgun... I'm going to read that line out of the agreement!" Wouldn't that be nice.

chainsaw
11-18-2013, 3:24 PM
What a ruling. From my reading (IANAL) they are saying that the RKBA is not a civil right.

I disagree. I think they say that there are more civil rights than just the RKBA, and when they talk about the plaintiff's civil rights, they talk about all of them as a bundle. The important thing is that the plaintiff didn't lose the whole bundle, and didn't have the whole bundle restored.

The concurring opinion is particularly fascinating, and should be read by the people who were arguing scrutiny here a while ago. It comes to the following fascinating conclusion: Where a major burden on the 2A is concerned, the correct level of scrutiny to use is strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. It then finds that the Lautenberg amendment can stand, even under strict scrutiny. And it cites all the statistics (which gun rights mavens like to ignore) that show that restrictive laws are frequently upheld, even under strict scrutiny.

EDITed: SunTzu pointed out that this is obviously the concurring opinion, not the dissenting one. My bad.

John Galt
11-18-2013, 3:44 PM
page 21
the core right identified in Heller—the right of a law-abiding, responsible
citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense

I wonder if they are tipping their hats to any of the right to carry suits.

Librarian
11-18-2013, 3:46 PM
Here, we apply Brailey and conclude that Chovan’s 1996
misdemeanor domestic violence conviction did not divest him
of civil rights because it did not divest him of the right to
vote, the right to serve on a jury, or the right to hold public
office. Because Chovan never lost these “core” civil rights,
he cannot qualify for the civil rights restored exception to
§ 922(g)(9). Further, we reject Chovan’s argument that the
civil rights restored exception violates the Equal Protection
Clause for the same reasons we articulated in Hancock. Id.
at 566–67.Opinion at page 10.

Essentially, 'we decided this part already'. But Brailey and Hancock were both pre-Heller and pre-McDonald; at that time, gun ownership was not thought a 'core civil right' - and arguably the courts still do not think so.

It is also the case that all the offenses and convictions - Brailey, Hancock, Chovan - were pre-Heller and pre-McDonald.

SunTzu
11-18-2013, 4:07 PM
The dissenting opinion is particularly fascinating, and should be read by the people who were arguing scrutiny here a while ago. It comes to the following fascinating conclusion: Where a major burden on the 2A is concerned, the correct level of scrutiny to use is strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. It then finds that the Lautenberg amendment can stand, even under strict scrutiny. And it cites all the statistics (which gun rights mavens like to ignore) that show that restrictive laws are frequently upheld, even under strict scrutiny.

Not dissenting, but concurring. Interesting thing is they mention 1023.4 as a means of restoration. Don't they know their own rulings?

LoneYote
11-18-2013, 6:37 PM
I disagree. I think they say that there are more civil rights than just the RKBA, and when they talk about the plaintiff's civil rights, they talk about all of them as a bundle. The important thing is that the plaintiff didn't lose the whole bundle, and didn't have the whole bundle restored.

So would a law about say misdemeanor shouting in public(decibel level too high) be a legitimate law if the punishment were the following? Could the punishment be removal of your 1a rights as a bundle(No religion, No speaking, No reading)? Neither of these would be viable in a judicial setting. How they manage to convince themselves that the line of reasoning is acceptable... there are not words.

chainsaw
11-18-2013, 10:20 PM
So would a law about say misdemeanor shouting in public(decibel level too high) be a legitimate law if the punishment were the following? Could the punishment be removal of your 1a rights as a bundle(No religion, No speaking, No reading)? Neither of these would be viable in a judicial setting. How they manage to convince themselves that the line of reasoning is acceptable... there are not words.

In the context of the decision, your comment makes no sense.

Please read the decision cover to cover, and then decide whether you want to ask the question again.

LoneYote
11-18-2013, 10:23 PM
In the context of the decision, your comment makes no sense.

Please read the decision cover to cover, and then decide whether you want to ask the question again.

I wasn't quoting the decision... I was quoting you. Asking about the line of thinking which you proposed.

chainsaw
11-18-2013, 10:28 PM
I was not proposing a line of thinking. I was quoting the decision. The decision says, in a nutshell, that the question whether the plaintiff did (or did not) lose his civil rights, or rather had them restored, depends on whether he lost all his civil rights or not. Restoration isn't restoration, if it doesn't restore what was actually lost.

ddestruel
11-18-2013, 11:08 PM
Theres some interesting tid bits in this that i agree may be hat tips to some pending 9 CA cases or 9th CA sentiments. this is far from over and kilmer will still see his day in court but may be threading a thinner needle

fizux
11-19-2013, 6:10 AM
So would a law about say misdemeanor shouting in public(decibel level too high) be a legitimate law if the punishment were the following? Could the punishment be removal of your 1a rights as a bundle(No religion, No speaking, No reading)? Neither of these would be viable in a judicial setting. How they manage to convince themselves that the line of reasoning is acceptable... there are not words.

I think SCOTUS draws a bit of a distinct line at "violent" felonies, and the application of some recent opinions to mere yelling might well result in the overturn of your hypothetical 1A ban for misdemeanor yelling.
Johnson v. US (2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-6925.pdf
Applying "violent felony" in 18 USC 924(e) to 18 USC 922(g)(1). SCOTUS found Florida's statute only required the slightest touching, which is not sufficient 'force' to be considered a 'violent' felony.

Cert was granted near the beginning of last month in Castleman. TN law didn't require "violence" for domestic assault conviction, application to 18 USC 922(g)(9). 6CA says defendant not banned, SCOTUS oral arg set for 1/14/2014.

Unfortunately, Castleman is one of those crappy facts cases that hopefully don't result in bad law.

anthonyca
11-19-2013, 5:40 PM
The dissenting opinion is particularly fascinating, and should be read by the people who were arguing scrutiny here a while ago. It comes to the following fascinating conclusion: Where a major burden on the 2A is concerned, the correct level of scrutiny to use is strict scrutiny, not intermediate scrutiny. It then finds that the Lautenberg amendment can stand, even under strict scrutiny. And it cites all the statistics (which gun rights mavens like to ignore) that show that restrictive laws are frequently upheld, even under strict scrutiny.

Not dissenting, but concurring. Interesting thing is they mention 1023.4 as a means of restoration. Don't they know their own rulings?

Do you mean 1203.4? Either they are incompetent or they are liars. The US attorneys and the courts have mentioned many times that 1203.4 would have been an easy for someone who has been stripped rights to regain them. We know this is not true. Also remember that until Enos, we never had a vetted plaintiff who was not appealing or a multiple offender.

Don Kilmer is smart in that he has one of the plaintiffs in Enos who has received a 1203.4 expungement. I believe it was Skoin SP? that erroneously mentioned 1203.4 as a way out. I know it was specifically mentioned by one of the circuits in a published case and I posted it here. I can find it if that would help.

Sorry for the choppy post. I'm on my phone.

M107A1
11-23-2013, 6:42 PM
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/11/18/11-50107.pdf

US vs Chovan decided. Just made Kilmers case that much harder.

It appears that the ruling may actually help Kilmers case mainly because in both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion, they at least acknowledge the exceptions to 922 (g)(9)??? (I could be incorrect in my interpretation since I am not legal savvy)

anthonyca
11-25-2013, 12:08 PM
It appears that the ruling may actually help Kilmers case mainly because in both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion, they at least acknowledge the exceptions to 922 (g)(9)??? (I could be incorrect in my interpretation since I am not legal savvy)

What are these exceptions?

M107A1
11-25-2013, 5:14 PM
What are these exceptions?

It is kind of lengthy but, the following can be found on Pg 49-51 of the opinion and is related to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(b)(ii):

In answer to Chovan’s as-applied challenge, California, where Chovan was convicted, makes expungement of misdemeanor convictions a right. Under § 1203.4a(a) of the California Penal Code, all misdemeanants can have their convictions expunged after completion of their sentences if they have not been charged with or convicted of a further crime and have “lived an honest and upright life.” Moreover, defendants must be informed of this right to expungement “either orally or in writing, at the time he or she is sentenced.” Id. at § 1203.4a(c)(1). Prosecuting attorneys have fifteen days from the filing of the petition for dismissal with the court to object. Id. at § 1203.4a(f). This participation of the district attorneys in the process allows California to maintain some adversarial integrity in the expungement proceedings, as the district attorney can oppose the motion if the convict’s rehabilitation is doubtful. This system places the evaluation of the convict’s rehabilitation,
vel non, in the state. Indeed, California courts have interpreted § 1203.4a(a) to mandate expungement when misdemeanants have complied with its terms. See, e.g., People v. Chandler, 250 Cal. Rptr. 730, 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (“[A] defendant moving under Penal Code section 1203.4a is entitled as a matter of right to its benefits upon a showing that he has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation. It was apparently intended that when a defendant has satisfied the terms of probation, the
trial court should have no discretion but to carry out its part of the bargain with the defendant.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Section 922 is in part a federalism-based statute. It looks to state law, passing restrictions on certain convicts based on decisions made by state legislatures and courts. Section 922 also ceases to apply if convicts have satisfied the state procedures for expungement. This helps the statute satisfy
the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny. It allows those who no longer pose a threat to society to demonstrate their rehabilitation and reclaim their Second Amendment rights. It is not a blunt instrument. Rather, it targets only those whom the states continue to deem not rehabilitated. It is
therefore narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing only those who pose the greatest risk to potential domestic violence victims from possessing guns.

M107A1
11-25-2013, 5:41 PM
Do you mean 1203.4? Either they are incompetent or they are liars. The US attorneys and the courts have mentioned many times that 1203.4 would have been an easy for someone who has been stripped rights to regain them. We know this is not true. Also remember that until Enos, we never had a vetted plaintiff who was not appealing or a multiple offender.

Don Kilmer is smart in that he has one of the plaintiffs in Enos who has received a 1203.4 expungement. I believe it was Skoin SP? that erroneously mentioned 1203.4 as a way out. I know it was specifically mentioned by one of the circuits in a published case and I posted it here. I can find it if that would help.

Sorry for the choppy post. I'm on my phone.

You are absolutely corrrect that about the 1203.4 expungement Anthony. It was US v. Skoien en banc in CA7 on page 16 of the opinion. It appears that CA9 is going to have to force the feds to recognize it with two different circuits citing the same exact method of relief. Kilmer also actually brought up that it was cited in the Skoien opinion during round 1 of Enos.

anthonyca
11-26-2013, 4:46 AM
It is kind of lengthy but, the following can be found on Pg 49-51 of the opinion and is related to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(b)(ii):

In answer to Chovan’s as-applied challenge, California, where Chovan was convicted, makes expungement of misdemeanor convictions a right. Under § 1203.4a(a) of the California Penal Code, all misdemeanants can have their convictions expunged after completion of their sentences if they have not been charged with or convicted of a further crime and have “lived an honest and upright life.” Moreover, defendants must be informed of this right to expungement “either orally or in writing, at the time he or she is sentenced.” Id. at § 1203.4a(c)(1). Prosecuting attorneys have fifteen days from the filing of the petition for dismissal with the court to object. Id. at § 1203.4a(f). This participation of the district attorneys in the process allows California to maintain some adversarial integrity in the expungement proceedings, as the district attorney can oppose the motion if the convict’s rehabilitation is doubtful. This system places the evaluation of the convict’s rehabilitation,
vel non, in the state. Indeed, California courts have interpreted § 1203.4a(a) to mandate expungement when misdemeanants have complied with its terms. See, e.g., People v. Chandler, 250 Cal. Rptr. 730, 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (“[A] defendant moving under Penal Code section 1203.4a is entitled as a matter of right to its benefits upon a showing that he has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation. It was apparently intended that when a defendant has satisfied the terms of probation, the
trial court should have no discretion but to carry out its part of the bargain with the defendant.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Section 922 is in part a federalism-based statute. It looks to state law, passing restrictions on certain convicts based on decisions made by state legislatures and courts. Section 922 also ceases to apply if convicts have satisfied the state procedures for expungement. This helps the statute satisfy
the narrow tailoring prong of strict scrutiny. It allows those who no longer pose a threat to society to demonstrate their rehabilitation and reclaim their Second Amendment rights. It is not a blunt instrument. Rather, it targets only those whom the states continue to deem not rehabilitated. It is
therefore narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing only those who pose the greatest risk to potential domestic violence victims from possessing guns.

You are absolutely corrrect that about the 1203.4 expungement Anthony. It was US v. Skoien en banc in CA7 on page 16 of the opinion. It appears that CA9 is going to have to force the feds to recognize it with two different circuits citing the same exact method of relief. Kilmer also actually brought up that it was cited in the Skoien opinion during round 1 of Enos.

Very interesting. Of course Skoien, (even though he was not in California) couldn't have been protected by 1203.4, wasn't he on probation when he was arrested? The common theme that I have found with all the cases of DV gun rights in each circuit is that every case was brought by a multiple offender and most were on probation at the time.

So what does this mean to someone in California with a 1203.4?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-26-2013, 6:12 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a ninth circuit opinion (Jennings (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/12/19/0516869.pdf)) holding that 1203.4 does not "expunge" the conviction for purposes of Lautenberg. Also, the plaintiffs are not arguing that 1203.4 or 1203.4a expunges the conviction:

The California procedure for having a misdemeanor conviction set aside and/or expunged is embodied in California Penal Code §§ 1203.4 and 1203.4a. Upon completing probation the defendant is allowed to withdraw their guilty plea and have the accusatory pleading dismissed. Thus the person is returned to the status of being ‘law-abiding.’ By their plain language these statutes, do not by themselves, reinstate firearm rights.

fizux
11-26-2013, 7:04 AM
(2) Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.
___

anthonyca
11-26-2013, 7:44 AM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a ninth circuit opinion (Jennings (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/12/19/0516869.pdf)) holding that 1203.4 does not "expunge" the conviction for purposes of Lautenberg. Also, the plaintiffs are not arguing that 1203.4 or 1203.4a expunges the conviction:

Then why have the 7th and 9th circuit both brought up that 1203.4 would have restored the rights of defendants? Are they that inept or are they lying for some reason? Or perhaps they believe that Lennings and the BATF are wrong in stating that 1203.4 is not an "expungement" per lautenberg.

Both times I have read published reports where the 7th and 9th brought up 1203.4 as a means of rights restoration, they brought it up on their own, the defense never raised 1203.4 and every mist DV case that made it to the circuit level that I have read was brought by someone on probation or where lautenberg was used as a Stacker to major crimes that carry less state time than fed gun possession my a mist DV.

Sorry for being on phone.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-26-2013, 8:31 AM
On my phone too, I don't think Jennings was even briefed by the parties in Chovan and it looks like the concurring judge in Chovan was just borrowing language and cites from Skoien and may not have independently researched anything. kind if embarrassing if that is what happened. Maybe a law clerk is responsible. In any event the language in the Chovan concurrence is not the 9th circuit saying anything, it's one panel judge.

mobileglass
11-27-2013, 9:30 AM
The difference in opinion on the federal view of 1203.4 or "expungement" under 922 is that the ATF DOES recognize restoration as applying, it did so from 1994-@2004 until they were de-funded and the FBI started interpreting it under each state's view of expungement.
My question for this post is a new one.
With the ambiguity between state and federal law, and all the flip-flopping over the 2nd Amendment...
When these cases are filed, has anyone seen the courts address the issue at hand as an ERIE PROBLEM?

anthonyca
12-02-2013, 8:20 AM
The difference in opinion on the federal view of 1203.4 or "expungement" under 922 is that the ATF DOES recognize restoration as applying, it did so from 1994-@2004 until they were de-funded and the FBI started interpreting it under each state's view of expungement.
My question for this post is a new one.
With the ambiguity between state and federal law, and all the flip-flopping over the 2nd Amendment...
When these cases are filed, has anyone seen the courts address the issue at hand as an ERIE PROBLEM?

That is one example I use when people say there is no problem with registration or when they say that only an idiot would not know he is prohibited. Thousands of people, many of them police officers and military personnel, were cleared through intensive background checks and told they were good to go as far as owning or possessing a gun. Then the ATF changed their mind, BAM, instant felon with no way out! I saw this happen when I was in the Army, we had people with secret clearance who passed all kinds of checks. All of a sudden, the ATF changed their view and they were instant felons for going to.drill, not only them, but the command and anyone who gave them a gun. The same can happen with court rulings.

ddestruel
12-02-2013, 6:37 PM
they say 1203.4 provides a path to restoring your rights, the right is not encumbered because a path to restoration exists.... oh but by the way we interpret that not to actually restore your rights in certain cases and your state can choose to not allow or interpret it as not granting all rights back...

am i reading this right?

so in the case of NFA items... just to read this interpretation into a different subject mater that still irks me since I’ve lived in free states.
I’ve heard it said that federal tax stamps provided access to NFA FA weapons, the process of an excise tax stamp does not encumber the right since there as still access..... oh but by the way 50 years later we changed our minds no more tax stamps will be issued, and your state can choose to not allow the existing ones anymore. :eek: you still have the right and access just not as much access to it as we previously granted you.

so the 1203.4 they claim gives people a path to resorting rights or so the court says then choose later in the law and with other laws they choose to encumber or interpret the path away... so it exists but doesn’t exist.?

sorry i just felt like trying to tie that together

mobileglass
12-03-2013, 12:33 PM
I don't know why people do not read the section:

1203.4
(2) Dismissal of an accusation or information pursuant to this section does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm or prevent his or her conviction under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800) of Division 9 of Title 4 of Part 6.

donnie707
12-04-2013, 12:47 PM
NO! the dismissal you're talking about is the 1203.4(a) which is state. you won't pass a pfec. under federal law youre banned lifetime!

ok. I just got my PFEC in the mail. it has it checked off that I am eligible to both possess and purchase firearms. so I guess im clear! HOOAH! time to go shopping. for everyone else in this thread. keep fighting the good fight.

e90bmw
12-04-2013, 2:57 PM
Hi,

The "US vs Chovan Case" is interesting, but did anyone read the pdf?
He was convicted in 1996 of DV.
In 2009 he tried to buy a gun. Denied.
They then started investigating him:
In March of 2010 yet another DV charge.
In April they searched and found four guns.

"During their investigation, FBI agents found videos on the Internet depicting Chovan and others shooting rifles and conducting “border patrols” near the U.S.-Mexico border"

"During his arrest, Chovan admitted that he had possessed and fired the firearms several times since his 1996 domestic violence conviction"

If this was a serious 2A challenge he would have appealed the denial and gone to court. He would not have possessed and fired guns before he was cleared to do so. The guy is a moron and is trying to hide behind the 2A as to not go to jail for being an overall scum bag.

LoneYote
12-04-2013, 3:11 PM
The guy is a moron and is trying to hide behind the 2A as to not go to jail for being an overall scum bag.

The question is "How does one define scum bag?" since you seem to indicate that he should not have the protection of the 2A. What happens when the government decides that having a speeding ticket is sufficient to cause a total loss of civil liberties? This is a matter of the merits of the case not the merits of the man.

mobileglass
12-05-2013, 10:33 AM
Up until recently, when a person plead or was found guilty, most all courts did not even know of the new laws, which passed quickly and unconstitutionally, sitting in an ERIE ambiguity, or did not tell the person so convicted of the new status of their possible restriction. There were no rules in place. For felonies, of course. But for misdemeanors, I certainty never was told. Not a single attorney around knew of the Title 18; however, a paralegal did; odd!

Scum bag is the one throwing blankets over mankind as if one man = all men.
Guilty till proven guilty....
Always guilty when DV is mentioned...
The other party to the suit is never ever mentioned
The bipolar, borderline personality, blanket protected, DV sheltered women wanting equality, throwing their crazy lies around, when an officer with penis shows up and cuddles her and tells her he will be right back to kiss it all better as soon as he finishes booking your BF, she appeals to sympathy to those who are actually impartial of the situation, in-capacity agents of the state want nothing to do with the lies of domestic situations, and the District Attorney just wants #s to pad stats; why not throw weight at people lacking capacity of legal knowledge or the $ to defend balanced with representation

SunTzu
12-14-2013, 2:05 PM
A great read. CORAM VS ILLINIOS. some actual thought put into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/113867.pdf

M107A1
12-21-2013, 8:24 PM
A great read. CORAM VS ILLINIOS. some actual thought put into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/113867.pdf

The opinion is very detailed. Hopefully it is enough to persuade other judges to address 2A cases on the merits and not based on public opinion. Even though, it is an "as applied" win, it is still a step in the right direction for future 2A cases.

anthonyca
12-23-2013, 8:10 AM
A great read. CORAM VS ILLINIOS. some actual thought put into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/113867.pdf

The opinion is very detailed. Hopefully it is enough to persuade other judges to address 2A cases on the merits and not based on public opinion. Even though, it is an "as applied" win, it is still a step in the right direction for future 2A cases.

I've been working a lot and haven't had time to read the opinion. What is the synopsis?

Librarian
12-23-2013, 10:05 AM
JERRY W. CORAM, Appellee, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (The
Illinois Department of State Police, Appellant).
A circuit court’s original 2010 order for issuance of a Firearm Owner’s
Identification card 18 years after a misdemeanor conviction for domestic
battery was upheld, and its subsequent ruling that federal firearms law
incorporated into the Illinois statute was unconstitutional as applied was
vacated.
...
We believe the applicable state and federal statutory schemes can be interpreted in a
manner consistent with congressional intent and in such a way as to afford Coram his firearm
rights under the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22) and the second amendment
to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II). We thus conclude the circuit court
erred in holding section 922(g)(9) unconstitutional as applied to Coram.

ETA: being a state of Illinois case, its influence on any Federal cases is, as yet, speculative.

M107A1
01-17-2014, 2:14 PM
In light of United States v. Castleman being argued in SCOTUS, what are the possible impacts if any that it might have on Enos' case?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-1371&TY=2013

Wolverine
01-17-2014, 4:42 PM
In light of United States v. Castleman being argued in SCOTUS, what are the possible impacts if any that it might have on Enos' case?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-1371&TY=2013

In Castleman the US is urging the court to apply an expansive definition of "physical force" as used in the Lautenberg Amendment such that even conviction for a light shove, if applied to a domestic partner/child, would qualify for a lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms. That is really scary.

I had hopes that the Heller 5 would see this as an extreme overreach until I read Johnson v US (cited in the Castleman briefs). In Johnson the court held that "physical force" as used in another statute meant "violent force" and mere offensive touching doesn't count. So far so good for Castleman. That makes sense to me. I understand the Lautenberg Amendment as aiming to disarm people that actually committed felony caliber assault but for various reasons were only charged with a misdemeanor.

However, not only did Scalia (wrote the majority opinion in Johnson) caution that this narrow definition of "physical force" is not necessarily going to apply to the Lautenberg Amendment, but Alito and Thomas specifically dissented in Johnson for that very reason. That is, Alito/Thomas thought it's a good idea to interpret the Lautenberg Amendment to bar people for even real misdemeanor assault (if it's domestic).

I hope I got all this wrong some way, but so far it is not looking good to me.

anthonyca
01-20-2014, 7:05 AM
In Castleman the US is urging the court to apply an expansive definition of "physical force" as used in the Lautenberg Amendment such that even conviction for a light shove, if applied to a domestic partner/child, would qualify for a lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms. That is really scary.

I had hopes that the Heller 5 would see this as an extreme overreach until I read Johnson v US (cited in the Castleman briefs). In Johnson the court held that "physical force" as used in another statute meant "violent force" and mere offensive touching doesn't count. So far so good for Castleman. That makes sense to me. I understand the Lautenberg Amendment as aiming to disarm people that actually committed felony caliber assault but for various reasons were only charged with a misdemeanor.

However, not only did Scalia (wrote the majority opinion in Johnson) caution that this narrow definition of "physical force" is not necessarily going to apply to the Lautenberg Amendment, but Alito and Thomas specifically dissented in Johnson for that very reason. That is, Alito/Thomas thought it's a good idea to interpret the Lautenberg Amendment to bar people for even real misdemeanor assault (if it's domestic).

I hope I got all this wrong some way, but so far it is not looking good to me.

The majority opinion in Johnson brought up a public meeting between president Nixon and the Russian leader at the time. The two had gotten in an argument over an American washing machine vs a Russian woman and a wash board and they raised their voice. Nixon then touched the Russian with the tip of his finger as he was arguing. That level of force is what the government is arguing should constitute a lifetime ban, with a 10year sentance and $250,000 fine for ever touching a bullet or gun and a federal felony that will never be erased.

Think about that fact.

NickTheGreek
02-21-2014, 6:30 PM
I haven't seen anything about this yet, but is the court addressing the threat portion of it? I read that they discussed it briefly, but didn't go into it much more than comparing the two definitions of threats (ACCA says threat without deadly weapon applies, and Fed says a deadly weapon has to be used to threaten)

2ASupporter
04-23-2014, 4:30 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/nra-domestic-violence_n_5191555.html

It looks like the NRA is starting to back down to gain members.

hardlyworking
04-24-2014, 5:46 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/nra-domestic-violence_n_5191555.html

It looks like the NRA is starting to back down to gain members.

LOL a positive NRA article .... on HuffPo? That's just wild. And every national organization must manage their public image from time to time. It seems somewhat clear also that SCOTUS is going to "buy" the public safety compelling interest in DV cases, so standing in the way of that just burns PR capitol.

2Cute2Shoot
04-24-2014, 5:57 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158911&d=1342160469 If you know anyone who has been impacted by lautenberg or feels that the lifetime misdemeanor ban is wrong, please email them a link to this thread. There are millions of us who feel this law is wrong. Let's go viral with this.

Donating money http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.html would really help this case and a possible future case for the plaintif who was dismissed by the judge. According to Donald Kilmer, that plaintiff had the best 10th amendment claim.

The 10th amendment claim will get more people interested than just gun people.

The Madison Society is suing Eric Holder and the feds over the lifetime federal ban on "domestic violence" misdemeanants. People who know about this issue know just how easy it is to become prohibited due to one of these convictions.

The case is Enos V Holder.
http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.html




Look at page 12. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/Enos-011-1-MTD-MPA.pdf The government is arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They say voting, speech, freedom of the press are, but not the second.

Update; Don Kilmer filed this Supplemental Authority. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.23.0.pdf

Update; Enos survived the motion to dismiss by the federal government.http://ia600300.us.archive.org/attachpdf.php?file=%2F35%2Fitems%2Fgov.uscourts.ca ed.215824%2Fgov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf

We are winning!
Update 10-3-11

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117072&d=1317699876

The government is grasping for straws. They really hate that bill of rights and this natural rights thing.

Update;

Post # 404

Update 1-11-12
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.49.0.pdf

Update 2-29-12 Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=137505&d=1330531223

Update 2-29-12 Don Kilmer filed a noti(ce of appeal (just a few hours after the government's motion to dismiss was granted)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=137544&d=1330544513

Update. 7-12-12 Don Kilmer filing in the 9th circuit court.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158911&d=1342160469

Update 9-7-12 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=168585&d=1347132955
Government is using the same tired argument that a denial is not grounds for a case, you need to be arrested to have a case. This is why we mostly have bad plaintifs in gun cases.

Update 9-21-12 Don Kilmer final brief before oral arguments.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=170728&d=1348368108

Update. 5-8-13

This update is a little off topic. It relates to PC 242 and it inclusion of "the least touching".

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=a05c173b63&e=46ea51d106

just started reading this thread. too complicated for me :( but i will stick with it. thank you for posting it anthony :)

Maestro Pistolero
04-24-2014, 10:27 AM
Three years and running . . . this may have been the most optimistic thread title ever!

SunTzu
04-24-2014, 1:40 PM
Three years? I thought I heard it would be TWO WEEKS!!!

mobileglass
05-01-2014, 11:59 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/nra-domestic-violence_n_5191555.html

It looks like the NRA is starting to back down to gain members.

Where, who, what, when, where were the NRA lobbyist when Lautenberg got his amendment into the bill that codified this Title 18 921/922 restriction? Were the lobbyist so dumb to not recognize the ambiguity of the language. Did they even know? I imagine so. So please tell me where they were. Backing down then also? Giving in, droppin to their knees, thinking they could never get swooped in by this kind of issue at home, or with a crazy gf, etc. etc.
Where are they now?
They are not fighting for this issue to be resolved. When this gets resolved they will def. act like they won. And Don, how will that make you feel? Madison Society, how does that make you feel? People, how does it make you feel that NRA just plain folds one issue at a time, but will love to take credit for what they have not supported.

JesseXXX
05-05-2014, 5:14 PM
Still blows me away a right can be straight up stolen... I feel for the people whom have lost this especially over non-physical DV cases.... Places like Lomita CA (Sheriffs) are famous for this....

anthonyca
05-09-2014, 5:47 PM
Three years and running . . . this may have been the most optimistic thread title ever!

I was asked to change the title to the current title.

rij1
05-09-2014, 11:01 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158911&d=1342160469 If you know anyone who has been impacted by lautenberg or feels that the lifetime misdemeanor ban is wrong, please email them a link to this thread. There are millions of us who feel this law is wrong. Let's go viral with this.

Donating money http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.html would really help this case and a possible future case for the plaintif who was dismissed by the judge. According to Donald Kilmer, that plaintiff had the best 10th amendment claim.

The 10th amendment claim will get more people interested than just gun people.

The Madison Society is suing Eric Holder and the feds over the lifetime federal ban on "domestic violence" misdemeanants. People who know about this issue know just how easy it is to become prohibited due to one of these convictions.

The case is Enos V Holder.
http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.html




Look at page 12. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/Enos-011-1-MTD-MPA.pdf The government is arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They say voting, speech, freedom of the press are, but not the second.

Update; Don Kilmer filed this Supplemental Authority. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.23.0.pdf

Update; Enos survived the motion to dismiss by the federal government.http://ia600300.us.archive.org/attachpdf.php?file=%2F35%2Fitems%2Fgov.uscourts.ca ed.215824%2Fgov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf

We are winning!
Update 10-3-11

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=117072&d=1317699876

The government is grasping for straws. They really hate that bill of rights and this natural rights thing.

Update;

Post # 404

Update 1-11-12
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.49.0.pdf

Update 2-29-12 Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=137505&d=1330531223

Update 2-29-12 Don Kilmer filed a noti(ce of appeal (just a few hours after the government's motion to dismiss was granted)
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=137544&d=1330544513

Update. 7-12-12 Don Kilmer filing in the 9th circuit court.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158911&d=1342160469

Update 9-7-12 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=168585&d=1347132955
Government is using the same tired argument that a denial is not grounds for a case, you need to be arrested to have a case. This is why we mostly have bad plaintifs in gun cases.

Update 9-21-12 Don Kilmer final brief before oral arguments.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=170728&d=1348368108

Update. 5-8-13

This update is a little off topic. It relates to PC 242 and it inclusion of "the least touching".

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1ef541dad0e09e0f2235125c0&id=a05c173b63&e=46ea51d106

I wanna Bump this Great thread... I have a DV charge for my screen door closing as I walked out of my house and as it was closing it hit my ex girlfriends arm as she was running after me yelling.. I should have fought instead of taking a deal just to get out of jail so I didn't loose my job. This has to get resolved as it is affecting too many innocent people.

anthonyca
05-12-2014, 5:12 AM
I wanna Bump this Great thread... I have a DV charge for my screen door closing as I walked out of my house and as it was closing it hit my ex girlfriends arm as she was running after me yelling.. I should have fought instead of taking a deal just to get out of jail so I didn't loose my job. This has to get resolved as it is affecting too many innocent people.

People don't understand how that can happen until it happens to them or they witness it happen to someone else.

I'm on my phone and I have to go to work so I won't post the link now but, there was just a case at SCOTUS about this law. Justice Scalia was giving examples of what people are arrested and convicted as DV. The court was actually laughing, washing your kid's mouth out with soap, the slightest touch possible etc.

The point that scalia was making was that every person has committed DV. He even wrote in his ruling that either everything is DV or nothing is DV. Since the constitutionally of the law was not argued, just the meaning was, the decision was unanimous.

People really need to listen to those oral arguments before they spout off about wife beaters and child abusers because they are often talking about themselves.

This thread or myself are in no way condoning real DV or child abuse. But when a federal law makes you a felon for exercising a natural right after commiting what SCOTUS ruled
is DV, something is really wrong.

rij1
05-28-2014, 7:57 PM
People don't understand how that can happen until it happens to them or they witness it happen to someone else.

I'm on my phone and I have to go to work so I won't post the link now but, there was just a case at SCOTUS about this law. Justice Scalia was giving examples of what people are arrested and convicted as DV. The court was actually laughing, washing your kid's mouth out with soap, the slightest touch possible etc.

The point that scalia was making was that every person has committed DV. He even wrote in his ruling that either everything is DV or nothing is DV. Since the constitutionally of the law was not argued, just the meaning was, the decision was unanimous.

People really need to listen to those oral arguments before they spout off about wife beaters and child abusers because they are often talking about themselves.

This thread or myself are in no way condoning real DV or child abuse. But when a federal law makes you a felon for exercising a natural right after commiting what SCOTUS ruled
is DV, something is really wrong.

Do you have that link you talked about? I'd like to check it out.

LoneYote
05-28-2014, 8:02 PM
People really need to listen to those oral arguments before they spout off about wife beaters and child abusers because they are often talking about themselves.


I love listening to the oral arguments. The judges are surprisingly funny....

lordvader
05-29-2014, 3:31 PM
We need to vote out the old and vote in new minds.

Master_P
05-29-2014, 3:42 PM
Do you have that link you talked about? I'd like to check it out.

UNITED STATES v. CASTLEMAN
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1371

MP3 direct link:
http://www.oyez.org/api/media/sites/default/files/audio/cases/2013/12-1371_20140115-argument.mp3

Chief Justice John G. Roberts: I'm sorry, you cannot cause bodily injury without using physical force?

Melissa Arbus Sherry: --You cannot intentionally cause bodily injury without using physical force.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts: So if the victim is at the top of the stairwell and you go ‶ boo ″, and he or she falls down and is injured, is that physical force?

Melissa Arbus Sherry: It is physical force.

Justice Antonin Scalia: If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?

Melissa Arbus Sherry: --I'm sorry, if you punch somebody in the nose?

Justice Antonin Scalia: If I punch somebody in the nose.

Melissa Arbus Sherry: Yes, that is violence.

Justice Antonin Scalia: Okay.

So do you have to have a special rule for if I punch my wife in the nose?

Melissa Arbus Sherry: No, and we're not arguing--

Justice Antonin Scalia: Any physical action that hurts somebody is violence, isn't it?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: And you don't think that if -- have you ever had soap in your eye, that somebody threw the soap in to cause you pain intentionally?

That wouldn't be physical injury to you?

Charles A. Rothfeld: --I think that that would be bodily injury within the meaning of the statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia: How about soap in the mouth?

I've had that.

[Laughter]

Charles A. Rothfeld: I'll leave that one alone, Justice Scalia.

anthonyca
06-02-2014, 6:57 AM
UNITED STATES v. CASTLEMAN
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_12_1371

MP3 direct link:
http://www.oyez.org/api/media/sites/default/files/audio/cases/2013/12-1371_20140115-argument.mp3

Thank you Master_P. Most people are in denial that they have legally committed DV.

JesseXXX
06-27-2014, 5:22 PM
That's makes sense what "one of the supreme's" is saying... Technically ANY "violence" at your home is "domestic violence" so aren't we all guilty...? What about when you spank a child..? At home..? What if my wife throws' a pillow at me for watching UFC/MMA while she's on the phone.... At i jokingly throw it back....? Is that violence...?

anthonyca
06-30-2014, 7:46 AM
That's makes sense what "one of the supreme's" is saying... Technically ANY "violence" at your home is "domestic violence" so aren't we all guilty...? What about when you spank a child..? At home..? What if my wife throws' a pillow at me for watching UFC/MMA while she's on the phone.... At i jokingly throw it back....? Is that violence...?

According to California jury instructions, yes that is enough for DV. The courts have ruled that "the least touching" is battery. The touching does not have to cause pain or discomfort, it doesn't even have to have the intent to cause pain or intimidation.

If you touch someone as gently as possible in a disagreement, that is mist battery, if thar person is your wife, you are now a federal felon if you ever touch a gun.

Rumline
06-30-2014, 8:35 AM
According to California jury instructions, yes that is enough for DV. The courts have ruled that "the least touching" is battery. The touching does not have to cause pain or discomfort, it doesn't even have to have the intent to cause pain or intimidation.
This is reason #35 to report for jury duty.

I was serving on a trial where the defendant was facing a "main charge" and then a "backup charge" of misdemeanor battery. The DA probably thought "well if I can't get him for what I really want to get him for, at least I can get him for battery." The trial involved an incident in a supermarket checkout line, and the defendant, the accuser, and surveillance footage all agreed that the defendant "bumped into" the "victim." The jury instructions were exactly as anthonyca said..."even the slightest touch can be considered battery." :facepalm:

It should have been a slam-dunk conviction but we engaged in some righteous jury nullification on that one. It took convincing though; several people wanted to be robotic about it and just follow the jury instructions to the letter. I had to ask them how many times they've bumped into someone in public and if they feel like they deserved jail time for that.

anthonyca
06-30-2014, 8:55 AM
This is reason #35 to report for jury duty.

I was serving on a trial where the defendant was facing a "main charge" and then a "backup charge" of misdemeanor battery. The DA probably thought "well if I can't get him for what I really want to get him for, at least I can get him for battery." The trial involved an incident in a supermarket checkout line, and the defendant, the accuser, and surveillance footage all agreed that the defendant "bumped into" the "victim." The jury instructions were exactly as anthonyca said..."even the slightest touch can be considered battery." :facepalm:

It should have been a slam-dunk conviction but we engaged in some righteous jury nullification on that one. It took convincing though; several people wanted to be robotic about it and just follow the jury instructions to the letter. I had to ask them how many times they've bumped into someone in public and if they feel like they deserved jail time for that.

You are a good American. Thank you for doing your duty.

marcusrn
07-03-2014, 10:49 AM
Jury nullification is tantamount to what POTUS and AG Eric Holder do with laws they don't like.

Why would the good citizenry of this great nation not follow their lead.

Marcus

IVC
07-03-2014, 1:35 PM
Jury nullification is tantamount to what POTUS and AG Eric Holder do with laws they don't like.

Not even close, although effect might be similar.

Nullification is a valid option for a jury. Dereliction of executive duty is not.

marcusrn
07-03-2014, 9:51 PM
Mea culpa. Good point.

mobileglass
07-12-2014, 11:40 PM
"Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions..." In re Marriage cases (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 757 at 780

"The right to due process is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee." Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)

Master_P
07-13-2014, 2:25 PM
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/enosvholder/

No activity on this case since September of 2012. What are the courts waiting on now?

meaty-btz
07-13-2014, 2:46 PM
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/enosvholder/

No activity on this case since September of 2012. What are the courts waiting on now?

As the courts realize that we will get more wins and they sound more and more insane when they try to rule against.. the current tactic by the Judiciary is to deny us Justice by Delay.

HowardW56
07-13-2014, 7:21 PM
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/enosvholder/

No activity on this case since September of 2012. What are the courts waiting on now?

There has been activity, just not much...

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=339990&stc=1&d=1405308029

anthonyca
07-14-2014, 6:55 AM
There has been activity, just not much...

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=339990&stc=1&d=1405308029

Thanks Howard. I will update the OP when I get a chance.

All. We don't see all the action but be assured, Holder and the rest of the federal government are hoping that they can starve out Enos and then bleed him dry. Please donate what you can. The case is Enos v Holder. http://www.madison-society.org/litigation.shtml

Even if you are not currently affected by this prohibition, this is an important case.