PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

anthonyca
04-06-2011, 5:58 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.shtml




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

Update 7-2-14
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=339990&d=1405308029

Update 4-7-15
Petition for writ of certiorari filed for SCOTUS Response due 5-11-15
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=405311&d=1428944211

Update 5-26-15
Government again arguing that gun rights are not civil rights.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/2015/06/02/14-1216_enos.pdf

MP301
04-06-2011, 6:07 PM
Like I think I said in another thread where this came up. Kilmer and The Madison Society Rock. I never understood how a felon could regain fireamrs rights, but as a Misd. DV convict, whether any force was used or not, your banned for life.

Several will agree with me that taking away any "RIGHT" for life should be a tall order.

stix213
04-06-2011, 6:12 PM
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.

anthonyca
04-06-2011, 6:29 PM
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.

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. You want to get out of an argument so you ever so slightly move your spouses arm away from the door knob, by legal and jury instruction that is DV.

Most people get into trouble by telling the cops that they moved their spouse's hand to avoid a more heated argument. Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

anthonyca
04-06-2011, 6:35 PM
Like I think I said in another thread where this came up. Kilmer and Thje Madison Society Rock. I never understood how a felon could regain fireamrs rights, but as Misd. DV convict, whether any force waqs used or not, was banned for life.

Several will agree with me that taking away any "RIGHT" for life should be a tall order.

I joined the Madison Society and donated some money. You are correct. they rock.

Librarian
04-06-2011, 7:41 PM
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.

Absolutely.

Interesting article on felony: "Unintended Collateral Consequences: Defining Felony in the Early American Republic " downloadable here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1517216).

anthonyca
04-06-2011, 8:52 PM
Absolutely.

Interesting article on felony: "Unintended Collateral Consequences: Defining Felony in the Early American Republic " downloadable here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1517216).

You are the absolute master of posting relevant and interesting information. What a great resource you are the the RKBA.

wildhawker
04-06-2011, 9:02 PM
You [Librarian] are the absolute master of posting relevant and interesting information. What a great resource you are the the RKBA.

Understatement of the day.

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
04-06-2011, 9:07 PM
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.

EXACTLY !

Al Norris
04-06-2011, 9:43 PM
I went to PACER and RECAPed the docket. While it may take a while to sync everthing, here are the results (for those wishing to follow and read):

Enos, et al v. Holder, et al (http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html). Case 2:10-cv-02911 (PACER #215824). Filed on 10-29-2010 in the US District Court of the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. Donald Kilmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs. 9 Plaintiffs, all but one, convicted of MCDV (Lautenberg). Alleges the US Government has violated their 2A rights through an unlawful interpretation of 18 U.S.C. SS 921, 922, and 925. Alleges violations of 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments. The Madison Society (http://www.madison-society.org/) is funding this lawsuit.

The original complaint is available on the docket. First amended complaint is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.8.0.pdf

Defendants MTD (points and authorities) is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.11.1.pdf

N6ATF
04-06-2011, 11:27 PM
IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a capital felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a capital felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

Fixed. If the government wants someone to be killed, it should do it itself and not aid and abet murderers via victim disarmament.

anthonyca
04-07-2011, 7:41 AM
Great post. Thank you.

I went to PACER and RECAPed the docket. While it may take a while to sync everthing, here are the results (for those wishing to follow and read):

Enos, et al v. Holder, et al (http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html). Case 2:10-cv-02911 (PACER #215824). Filed on 10-29-2010 in the US District Court of the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. Donald Kilmer, attorney for the Plaintiffs. 9 Plaintiffs, all but one, convicted of MCDV (Lautenberg). Alleges the US Government has violated their 2A rights through an unlawful interpretation of 18 U.S.C. SS 921, 922, and 925. Alleges violations of 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments. The Madison Society (http://www.madison-society.org/) is funding this lawsuit.

The original complaint is available on the docket. First amended complaint is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.8.0.pdf

Defendants MTD (points and authorities) is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.11.1.pdf

J.D.Allen
04-07-2011, 9:05 AM
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. You want to get out of an argument so you ever so slightly move your spouses arm away from the door knob, by legal and jury instruction that is DV.

Most people get into trouble by telling the cops that they moved their spouse's hand to avoid a more heated argument. Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

I've seen it more times than I care to mention. And it's fracking amazing how the presumption of innocence goes right out the window in DV cases.

mofugly13
04-07-2011, 9:41 AM
I have a co-worker who is a prohibited person because of a DV conviction. During his divorce he was fightig with his wife, and he tried to leave the house, but she blocked his way. He used one hand, on her arm to move her out of the way, and left. She called the cops, and he admitted to pushing her aside. They promptly arrested him ang confiscated his firearms. Later, after things cooled down, the wife didn't want any charges pressed, and didn't testify in court, but nevertheless, he was convicted and is now a prohibited person.

anthonyca
04-07-2011, 10:08 AM
I have a co-worker who is a prohibited person because of a DV conviction. During his divorce he was fightig with his wife, and he tried to leave the house, but she blocked his way. He used one hand, on her arm to move her out of the way, and left. She called the cops, and he admitted to pushing her aside. They promptly arrested him ang confiscated his firearms. Later, after things cooled down, the wife didn't want any charges pressed, and didn't testify in court, but nevertheless, he was convicted and is now a prohibited person.

Yes, and most men who don't like actual wife beaters will dig their own grave by telling the cops they don't believe in hitting women so they nudged by her to leave before it got ugly. Your done if you say that.

Gray Peterson
04-07-2011, 10:10 AM
I have a co-worker who is a prohibited person because of a DV conviction. During his divorce he was fightig with his wife, and he tried to leave the house, but she blocked his way. He used one hand, on her arm to move her out of the way, and left. She called the cops, and he admitted to pushing her aside. They promptly arrested him ang confiscated his firearms. Later, after things cooled down, the wife didn't want any charges pressed, and didn't testify in court, but nevertheless, he was convicted and is now a prohibited person.

Guys, let this be a lesson: Go out another way, and if she won't let you, call the cops and advise that you're being held against your will and that you don't want to physically lay hands on her in order to get out of your own home.

Turn the tables on her by calling first. Sorry to say this, but when a spouse refuses to let someone leave, it's coercion and the marriage is pretty much dead and over. There are some lines that are not meant to be crossed.

gunsmith
04-07-2011, 10:28 AM
an ex GF of mine tried to get me a DV, fortunately a roomate was there & she told the cops the truth, I never touched her and never threatened. She had called the cops ( I was living in Frisco @ the time ) and said I was "had locked myself in my room, was heavily armed and unresponsive" ( if your GF is a lawyer DO NOT win an argument if you value your sanity/freedom ) ... I was indeed "armed" as I owned a bunch of guns at the time, I was unresponsive because it was 2am & I was sleeping! The door was locked because I had my own room and didn't feel like arguing.

something like 5 cop cars showed up.

J.D.Allen
04-07-2011, 10:35 AM
Guys, let this be a lesson: Go out another way, and if she won't let you, call the cops and advise that you're being held against your will and that you don't want to physically lay hands on her in order to get out of your own home.

Turn the tables on her by calling first. Sorry to say this, but when a spouse refuses to let someone leave, it's coercion and the marriage is pretty much dead and over. There are some lines that are not meant to be crossed.

In CA not letting someone leave when they want to can also bring charges of false imprisonment...

jl123
04-07-2011, 10:36 AM
an ex GF of mine tried to get me a DV, fortunately a roomate was there & she told the cops the truth, I never touched her and never threatened. She had called the cops ( I was living in Frisco @ the time ) and said I was "had locked myself in my room, was heavily armed and unresponsive" ( if your GF is a lawyer DO NOT win an argument if you value your sanity/freedom ) ... I was indeed "armed" as I owned a bunch of guns at the time, I was unresponsive because it was 2am & I was sleeping! The door was locked because I had my own room and didn't feel like arguing.

something like 5 cop cars showed up.

Glad you came out of that OK. I hope you were done with her after that.

How did you like living in Texas?

Smokeybehr
04-07-2011, 11:12 AM
The defendants are using a wad of twisted logic in their briefs. One main argument they are using is that RKBA is not a civil right. They're also arguing that the plaintiffs knew what they were getting into when they plead NC to the charges. That opens the defendants up to the ex post facto argument by the plaintiffs.

Kilmer will kick some tail on this case, especially with the weaksauce in the defendants MTD.

nick
04-07-2011, 11:14 AM
Like I think I said in another thread where this came up. Kilmer and Thje Madison Society Rock. I never understood how a felon could regain fireamrs rights, but as Misd. DV convict, whether any force waqs used or not, was banned for life.

Several will agree with me that taking away any "RIGHT" for life should be a tall order.

Well, it's simple. Since hunting witches doesn't work to redirect public anger from the real problems (and real culprits, a.k.a. the politicians who create them) anymore, we needed new groups to hype up and and blame bad crops on. Domestic violence offenders, sex offenders, gays, gun owners, blacks, and other "undesirables of the highest order". You name it, we've probably tried it.

Of course, many would say that there's a big difference between someone actually committing a crime (DV or sex offender) and someone born with the "wrong" skin color or someone who happens to legally own guns. So, why did I lump them all together? Well, simply because all of them above groups (and many others) were negatively hyped up way beyond the scope of the original "offense" (whatever it might've been), and that hype was and is used to unconstitutionally deprive them of rights.

Take DV offenders, for example. I'm sure enough people will post in this thread saying that they have no problem with "wife beaters" being unable to own gun and have other rights taken away from them. Well, here's the first similarity between the way DV offenders and the other "undesirables" I mentioned are treated - dismissive names are created so that one doesn't have to think about the nature of the said offense. Why think when you already have a name for them that expresses your feelings on the subject (or rather, tells you how to feel on the subject). Then, of course, there's the reality that most "wife beaters" are anything but. Unfortunately, these days you don't even have to do anything criminal to becomes a DV offender. For example, accusations of domestic violence are pretty much a standard practice when it comes to divorce proceedings, as the parties to a divorce try to better position themselves before the judge. The required burden of proof seems to be ridiculously low. Another example is, say, you got into an argument at a bar. It didn't come to a fight, but you did touch the other person while gesticulating, like many people do. Well, these days you've just committed battery. If the person in question is related to you, you've just committed DV, and you're now a witch to be hunted down and scorned by the society. Your offense is worse than that of a mugger, who'll regain his rights in 10 years.

Now, for the creepy, horrible, scary sex offenders. Unfortunately, it's another list getting onto which is almost as easy as getting on the no-fly list, although at least some due process is followed (as opposed to the no-fly list. Come to think of it, a "domestic terrorist" is the and improved witch these days, as the old kinds of witches were wearing out as the terror they inspire goes). Let's see... A guy of 18 years and 4 days had sex with his girlfriend of 17 years 11 months and 19 days. Yes, I intentionally making it this close to show the ridiculousness of the law. This is something they've been doing for the past 2 years (heck, they might be Canadians, the age of consent there is 16, as it is in, say, most of Europe, and in some US states. However, it would appear that moving to some other US states without breaking up with your girlfriend first makes you a sex offender. Sounds familiar to you gun owners?). However, the guy has just become a sex offender, provided it's proven in the court of law that he's committed this heinous act. Maybe he broke up with his girlfriend soon thereafter and she complained. Maybe her parents never liked him to begin with, and decided to use this as the means of getting rid of him.

Another example, how many times have you heard of a teenage girl (and not just teenage girls) accusing someone of raping her when she got pregnant and didn't want to admit to her parents that she had sex?

How may times have you heard of children doing that when they got peeved at their parents? According to my niece, who's 11 and used to go to a public school, they had sessions where the school counselors tried to make kids say that their parents abuse them in all sorts of ways every quarter.

There're more ways to become a sex offender without doing anything wrong. The outcome is that you're screwed for life.

Unfortunately, it being so easy to become either a sex offender, or a DV offender dilutes the original meaning of the terms, and it makes the people really committing those offenses look not as bad as they should be looking.

Did I mention how disgusting (and unconstitutional) the whole retroactivity of the Lautenberg amendment is, as well?

I hope this lawsuit will succeed.

bluev7
04-07-2011, 11:26 AM
Great post thank you here is some damn light at the end of the tunnel. But really you can get a DV WITHOUT even touching someone how about that!!! Oh you broke somebodies cell phone huh? DV! No guns for you you hostile terrorist cell phone smasher oh but any stranger from another country can get a security clearance for our military!!!?

scarville
04-07-2011, 11:43 AM
I used to know a guy who claimed his DV conviction was because his wife grabbed his 35 mm camera and swung it at his head. When he dodged, the camera continued through its arc and hit her in the face. Of course he could be exaggerating. However, I've read enough stories about men convicted of DV for things that a sensible jury would toss back into the DA's face with the admonition to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and go after some real criminals.

IBTL.

mrdd
04-07-2011, 3:04 PM
Nick, what the heck is "DW"?

Suggestion: if you are going to use an abbreviation or acronym, spell it out the first time so others know what you are saying.

Munk
04-07-2011, 3:41 PM
I used to know a guy who claimed his DV conviction was because his wife grabbed his 35 mm camera and swung it at his head. When he dodged, the camera continued through its arc and hit her in the face. Of course he could be exaggerating. However, I've read enough stories about men convicted of DV for things that a sensible jury would toss back into the DA's face with the admonition to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and go after some real criminals.

IBTL.

Then theres the whole array of people who injure themselves to claim DV, and the outright liars, and similar who were never touched.

The worst of this is the massive gender bias. Women strike men and the men are expected to shrug it off or "man up" and not press charges. They're also held to a lesser punishment in a majority of cases, even when their actions are more aggregious than some taken by men. The equal protection amendment is looked at as a joke when considering equal sentencing between men and women. This is wrong. Same crime should mean same time.

HondaMasterTech
04-07-2011, 6:21 PM
If someone commits a crime which is so horrible that makes them such a dangerous person that they cannot be trusted to own a gun they are probably not trustworthy enough to be free in society.

It's very possible the entire concept of firearm prohibition needs to be redefined.

anthonyca
04-07-2011, 9:24 PM
The defendants are using a wad of twisted logic in their briefs. One main argument they are using is that RKBA is not a civil right. They're also arguing that the plaintiffs knew what they were getting into when they plead NC to the charges. That opens the defendants up to the ex post facto argument by the plaintiffs.

Kilmer will kick some tail on this case, especially with the weaksauce in the defendants MTD.

This is not cheap. The Madison Society will need funds for Mr.kilmer's valuable time as the government burns our tax dollars on this case.

scarville
04-07-2011, 9:30 PM
This is not cheap. The Madison Society will need funds for Mr.kilmer's valuable time as the government burns our tax dollars on this case.
It really sucks that gun owners contribute to defend their right but pay taxes to support the mokes that want to take them away.

TANJ.

anthonyca
04-07-2011, 9:59 PM
It really sucks that gun owners contribute to defend their right but pay taxes to support the mokes that want to take them away.

TANJ.

I agree. It's amazing that the government blatantly disobeys the law and uses our money to try to bleed us out in court.

In my trade I can be personally liable for causing harm or knowingly performing shoddy work, they should be also. I know about 1983 but I am talking about charging the costs of a lawsuit personally to the gov employee who caused it. A case in point is San Francisco, they admitted they knew they were going to loose with their argument on gun bans in public housing but the wasted tax payers money and denied citizens rights out of spite.

nick
04-07-2011, 11:08 PM
Nick, what the heck is "DW"?

Suggestion: if you are going to use an abbreviation or acronym, spell it out the first time so others know what you are saying.

Thinking of Dan Wessons while posting. Fixed :)

jshoebot
04-07-2011, 11:36 PM
Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

As well they should. If a juror doesn't believe it is morally sound to convict on a law that is being applied stupidly, he has the right and the duty to choose against it. That's part of the 'jury box' people always talk about.

www.fija.org

NorCalRedneck
04-08-2011, 2:46 AM
So instead of a man saying "I moved her out of the way so I could leave" and instead invoking his right to remain silent would he still be arrested and convicted. Or would it be dropped because it was a he said- she said and there were no marks or other incriminating evidence to go by?

anthonyca
04-08-2011, 5:06 AM
As well they should. If a juror doesn't believe it is morally sound to convict on a law that is being applied stupidly, he has the right and the duty to choose against it. That's part of the 'jury box' people always talk about.

www.fija.org

I agree with you but I don't believe many people know about that, or have the guts to act.

jl123
04-08-2011, 5:13 AM
I agree with you but I don't believe many people know about that, or have the guts to act.

It doesn't take a lot of guts to just vote your conscience......maybe more than some have I guess. As a juror, you don't need to explain your decision.

anthonyca
04-08-2011, 5:24 AM
It doesn't take a lot of guts to just vote your conscience......maybe more than some have I guess. As a juror, you don't need to explain your decision.

With most people I have met, the herd mentality is stronger than the freedom mentality. I know people like you are actively trying to change that and I hope you are successful.

jshoebot
04-08-2011, 5:27 AM
It doesn't take a lot of guts to just vote your conscience......maybe more than some have I guess. As a juror, you don't need to explain your decision.

Exactly. And when a judge says "You don't have the right to judge the law, only the facts of this case," he's not telling the whole truth. Jury nullification is one of the checks on power that our founding fathers gave us, but it's been around since long before. If more people would vote their conscience, there would be less stupid laws. :shrug:

jl123
04-08-2011, 6:01 AM
Exactly. And when a judge says "You don't have the right to judge the law, only the facts of this case," he's not telling the whole truth. Jury nullification is one of the checks on power that our founding fathers gave us, but it's been around since long before. If more people would vote their conscience, there would be less stupid laws. :shrug:

This is correct. Judges blatantly lie.

joe_sun
04-08-2011, 6:41 AM
Years ago I worked at a local DA's office as a CSO and it seems half my time was spent on DV cases. I'm glad to see others agree with me as the entire process left me sickened and with the mentality that you don't want cops in your life PERIOD.

Time and time again I saw men convicted in court or plead out to a DV charge because they non violently moved their girlfriend or wife out of their way while they were leaving the room. Nothing would have happened had their neighbors not called the police because they heard an argument.

Don't get me wrong, there really were wife beaters and husband beaters we dealt with but who in their right mind thinks that punching a woman in the face and non violently moving any part of her body deserve the same punishment?

I hope they win and I'll be giving them a donation.

SgtDinosaur
04-08-2011, 11:00 AM
If memory serves, that draconian law was passed during the OJ case hysteria. It is more than overdue to be struck down.

The Director
04-08-2011, 11:04 AM
Huh. Maybe Lee Baca will get to carry a gun again.

scarville
04-08-2011, 11:09 AM
Then theres the whole array of people who injure themselves to claim DV, and the outright liars, and similar who were never touched.
Years ago a radical group (WITCH maybe?) advocated using oranges in a bag because they leave nice bruises but do little real damage. So they claimed -- I have no idea of it actually works.

N6ATF
04-08-2011, 12:14 PM
So instead of a man saying "I moved her out of the way so I could leave" and instead invoking his right to remain silent would he still be arrested and convicted. Or would it be dropped because it was a he said- she said and there were no marks or other incriminating evidence to go by?

Ultimately, LE should be going by injuries, and witness statements. The person worst injured is the victim, and if only two people could have been involved, the other person is the suspect. If you exercise your 5A, you can let your lawyer argue for you that using reasonable force to remove yourself from the false imprisonment was proper.

Westerner
04-08-2011, 7:57 PM
Wow its about time. Please keep this case/thread updated.

Quser.619
04-08-2011, 8:46 PM
Have a buddy that does bail bonds, most common bond they post is DV. He's says the majority he meets are innocent

MP301
04-08-2011, 9:17 PM
Wow its about time. Please keep this case/thread updated.

I was thinking "Its about time" too, but then I realized that im actually surprised this particular item is coming up so soon. I didnt think it was low hanging fruit for sure!

Its not going to be as popular as other gun rights issues because too many short sighted bone heads take the "Wife beaters shouldnt have guns" stance without considering the whole picture. As a matter of fact, I am really suprised there have not been bunch of those posts in this thread.

I keep telling everyone that it might be ok with them if some particular group loses their gun rights, but they will get around to you and what ever group you belong to at some point. I wish people would get a clue.

I known several people that are prohibited due to Misd DV. I would easily conclude that the majority did not even come close to doing anything to warrant the loss of such an important right for life. Or even for 10 years which is also excessive. Most cases didnt even involve violence or injuries of any kind.

They would have probably been better off to get a felony because with Felonies you at least have a method to regain your rights in many cases. But due to the way the Lautenberg amendment is written, Misd. DV specifically is a lifetime ban. And states like CA that never ever remove convictions (or even arrests) from your DOJ jacket means even if you expunge it, Its still there and your still screwed.

I wish Don Kilmer and his plaintiffs the best of luck. If i had known this was coming, I probably could have sent him another perfect plaintiff or two.

shocknm
04-09-2011, 8:32 AM
:party:

At last, one of the most UNJUST laws out there is being challenged.
Don K - You are the man.
I just signed up to be a Madison Society member (Family membership $50) and gave an additional donation.

Only thing that would make this even better, is if there were a female plantiff in the mix :rolleyes:

Gray Peterson
04-09-2011, 9:09 AM
Years ago I worked at a local DA's office as a CSO and it seems half my time was spent on DV cases. I'm glad to see others agree with me as the entire process left me sickened and with the mentality that you don't want cops in your life PERIOD.

Time and time again I saw men convicted in court or plead out to a DV charge because they non violently moved their girlfriend or wife out of their way while they were leaving the room. Nothing would have happened had their neighbors not called the police because they heard an argument.

Don't get me wrong, there really were wife beaters and husband beaters we dealt with but who in their right mind thinks that punching a woman in the face and non violently moving any part of her body deserve the same punishment?

I hope they win and I'll be giving them a donation.

I wonder what would happen to these bad situations in that A) You don't do the above, you leave another way, and if you can't, call the cops as a victim of unlawful restraint/coercion B) You exercise your 5A completely.

Men out there need to adapt to the circumstance that nothing you can be believed.

anthonyca
04-09-2011, 9:35 AM
I wonder what would happen to these bad situations in that A) You don't do the above, you leave another way, and if you can't, call the cops as a victim of unlawful restraint/coercion B) You exercise your 5A completely.

Men out there need to adapt to the circumstance that nothing you can be believed.

Most of us were raised to trust the police and we were taught that justice prevails. People need to be educated in the truth. Now that DV arrests are one of the most common arrests, and they are often a fraud, and officers have no choice but to arrest, people are starting to get the picture. The problem is that it usually takes them being arrested or they see a friend arrested.

Grey, with your legal knowledge, what us your take on page 16, where the government says that the second amendment is not a civil right? http://www.madison-society.org/laws/Enos-011-1-MTD-MPA.pdf

What about how they say all but one defendant have no grounds to sue because they were not denied or arrested for trying to buy a firearm? One can not redress a grievance as a free man who is prohibited, and where a clear answer is not available. He has to be first charged or denied?

This was brought up on the Voloch Conspiracy website. There was a case where ATF told a man who was an FFL/fire arms tester, that he had lost his right to work in his trade bun he had no right to sue because he was not under arrest or charged. They said if he tried to buy a gun or touched one, he would be charged and arrested. He could then sue when facing 10 years in prison.

Munk
04-09-2011, 10:57 AM
What about how they say all but one defendant have no grounds to sue because they were not denied or arrested for trying to buy a firearm? One can not redress a grievance as a free man who is prohibited, and where a clear answer is not available. He has to be first charged or denied? .


A PFEC (Personal Firearms Eligibility Check) is proof enough of a right denied and would provide grounds to sue. You don't have to go to jail or waste money on DROS to prove standing.

anthonyca
04-10-2011, 9:41 AM
The defendants are using a wad of twisted logic in their briefs. One main argument they are using is that RKBA is not a civil right. They're also arguing that the plaintiffs knew what they were getting into when they plead NC to the charges. That opens the defendants up to the ex post facto argument by the plaintiffs.

Kilmer will kick some tail on this case, especially with the weaksauce in the defendants MTD.

Look on page 12 of this document. The gov is arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/Enos-011-1-MTD-MPA.pdf

This is a much bigger case than a MCDV case. I donated to the Madison Society and I hope others will also.

sreiter
04-10-2011, 10:39 AM
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

anthonyca
04-10-2011, 10:48 AM
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

This is a rare chance to fight back. The Madison Society needs money to fight this. If everyone who felt like you donated some money to the cause we would be able to fix many of these problems.

Aleksandr Mravinsky
04-10-2011, 2:32 PM
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.

If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, why are they even walking the streets?

HondaMasterTech
04-10-2011, 2:36 PM
If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, why are they even walking the streets?

If someone commits a crime which is so horrible that makes them such a dangerous person that they cannot be trusted to own a gun they are probably not trustworthy enough to be free in society.

It's very possible the entire concept of firearm prohibition needs to be redefined.

Good question.

Hdawg
04-11-2011, 12:44 AM
I know I shouldn't say this, because someone will take it the wrong way, but here goes. The Lautenberg amendment is my favorite anti gun law. Not because it is retroactive, or that you can lose your gun rights for life on a bs misdeamor charge ( I HATE those parts of the law), but because leos are not exempt. If we could get all laws involving guns to not exempt leos, we would win the gun control fight in less than six months. I AM NOT BASHING LEOS. I just think if all the leos had to go through what we have to go through, their unions would wield their considerable power and those laws would cease to exist.

Flame on!

:hide:

MP301
04-11-2011, 12:58 AM
I know I shouldn't say this, because someone will take it the wrong way, but here goes. The Lautenberg amendment is my favorite anti gun law. Not because it is retroactive, or that you can lose your gun rights for life on a bs misdeamor charge ( I HATE those parts of the law), but because leos are not exempt. If we could get all laws involving guns to not exempt leos, we would win the gun control fight in less than six months. I AM NOT BASHING LEOS. I just think if all the leos had to go through what we have to go through, their unions would wield their considerable power and those laws would cease to exist.

Flame on!

:hide:

I understand your point but its not just LE. Military, security, etc. as well. That is probably the only part of this that sounds fair? But it actually not.

If you think about it, this law not only takes away gun rights, but if your LE, Military, security and some others, you also get to lose your livlihood..your income...your career. In many cases, it was retroactive. How messed up is that?

With that said, im quite certain the unions made as much noise as they could at the time since some of their friends were getting the boot, yet it did no good.

Your 6 month timeline is probably optomistic, but I agree to a point. It sure would slow some of the BS at the very least if things applied to everyone equally.

Hdawg
04-11-2011, 1:10 AM
Yes, I'm sure six months is optimistic. But look at the ruckus that was raised when the AG opinion on retired leo assault weapons came out. Now imagine if the only guns they could have were the ones we all could have, as well as magazines. And no off duty carry without a ccw, and no special issuance of ccws. I could go on, but you get the idea. Again, this is not about bashing leos. In my opinion, any adult who is not locked up, on parole or on probation should be able to buy any gun up to and inluding fully automatic weapons. But there shouldn't be special classes of people. If I can't as a law abiding citizen, leos shouldn't be able to, either. Thank you for reading my post as it was intended.

MP301
04-11-2011, 1:21 AM
I agree. Things would definately be different if the rules were applied equally. Without a doubt.

BigBamBoo
04-11-2011, 12:11 PM
So does anyone with more legal savvy then I, know if this gets overturned would it apply to those with a felony DV that was reduced to a misdemeanor under 17(b)?

DV is one of the most screwed up laws with the responding LEO's basically making a judgement on the spot of who is guilty and who is not.

I personally know both men and WOMEN who have DV convictions that they truely do not deserve.
Hope this goes through.

Take care,Stan

stix213
04-11-2011, 12:25 PM
If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, why are they even walking the streets?

Just because someone has served their sentence, doesn't mean they have reformed. Felons are released when their sentence is complete, even if they are still a known danger to anyone they come in contact with.

anthonyca
04-11-2011, 1:03 PM
So does anyone with more legal savvy then I, know if this gets overturned would it apply to those with a felony DV that was reduced to a misdemeanor under 17(b)?

DV is one of the most screwed up laws with the responding LEO's basically making a judgement on the spot of who is guilty and who is not.

I personally know both men and WOMEN who have DV convictions that they truely do not deserve.
Hope this goes through.

Take care,Stan

How could someone have a felony DV reduced to a misdemeanor and not be federally banned for life? Misdemeanor DV is a federal lifetime ban.

This case is not just about DV. It's a states rights issue also. The Feds are also arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They are saying that if you lost your 1st amendment rights, your right to vote, your right to travel etc, and then had those rights restored the lautenberg amendment would no longer apply. They are arguing that the second amendment is not a civil right.

This is an important case but many gun owners think it is only about "wife beaters" so don't read the documents.

cineski
04-11-2011, 1:07 PM
Any person who can't handle any of the freedoms the United States provides, should not be a part of said society.

Spartan
04-11-2011, 1:35 PM
How could someone have a felony DV reduced to a misdemeanor and not be federally banned for life? Misdemeanor DV is a federal lifetime ban.

This case is not just about DV. It's a states rights issue also. The Feds are also arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They are saying that if you lost your 1st amendment rights, your right to vote, your right to travel etc, and then had those rights restored the lautenberg amendment would no longer apply. They are arguing that the second amendment is not a civil right.

This is an important case but many gun owners think it is only about "wife beaters" so don't read the documents.

Lautenberg law has a part in it that says if your other civil rights are restored, then you can own a gun. Wegrzyn v US 6th Cir. 2003 or 2004

SunTzu
04-11-2011, 2:00 PM
I never liked that Supreme Court Ruling that said those were the core Civil Rights. Not one of them listed in "the Bill of Rights". Since when did SCOTUS get to decide what civil rights are most important to me? The fact the Gov doesnt seem to care or even imply that rights are violated or even exist after the Heller/McDonald decisions is very disturbing. The quote from the 7th circuit about Ca restoration process is laughable when they dont even recognize it and are fighting against it.

BoxesOfLiberty
04-11-2011, 3:45 PM
Quoting a decision by the Ninth on page 7:

Section 1203.4, however, does not provide the extent of relief Jennings contends he
received. Although “a number of courts have used forms of the word ‘expunge’ to
describe the relief” under section 1203.4, “the statute does not in fact produce such a
dramatic result.” People v. Frawley, 82 Cal.App.4th 784, 790-91, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 555
(Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (citations omitted).

It seems that having a CA court grant a petition of restoration for civil rights pursuant to 1203.4 doesn't really count as restoring rights pursuant to 18 USC 922.

Unless it would be more convenient to the instant argument if it did (quoting the Seventh on page 23):

Some of the largest states make expungement available as of right to misdemeanants
who have a clean record for a specified time. California, for example, has such a
program. Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4a. This means that § 922(g)(9) in its normal
application does not create a perpetual and unjustified disqualification for a person who
no longer is apt to attack other members of the household.

Ah yes, conveniently CA has 1203.4 which provides a path to expungement, relieving us from having to defend what would otherwise be a perpetual and unjustified disqualification.

How convenient.

BigBamBoo
04-11-2011, 3:58 PM
............

MasterYong
04-11-2011, 4:05 PM
IMHO, no crime should get you banned from guns for life.

Bad enough to take away your civil liberties and ability to reasonably defend yourself? Bad enough to be hung, NEXT PLEASE.

I say this because the people that are banned that we should actually WANT banned are going to get a gun anyways and commit more crimes. The people that aren't going to commit more crimes should be OK with a gun since, ya know, etc.

But, I'm also in favor of much higher penalties for most crimes. Embezzle 10 billion dollars? OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!

JimSar
04-11-2011, 4:44 PM
What a coincidence ... Solano County Superior Court judge arrested by Vallejo PD last night on domestic violence charges.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_17820698

Westerner
04-11-2011, 4:50 PM
Lautenberg law has a part in it that says if your other civil rights are restored, then you can own a gun. Wegrzyn v US 6th Cir. 2003 or 2004

If that was the case. Then I don't think these plaintiffs would of filed this federal lawsuit.

anthonyca
04-11-2011, 5:15 PM
Hmm...well lets see. The headline of this thread states DV lawsuit...and most of the petition has to do exclusively with DV and restoration of rights under the 17(b) / 1203.4.

And here is a quote from the filed petition:

"Plaintiffs Richard Enos, Jeff Bastasini, Louie Mercado, Walter Groves, Manuel Monteiro,
Edward Erikson, Vernon Newman, Jeff Loughran, and William Edwards were convicted of
misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, but wish to acquire and possess firearms. Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(9), it is unlawful for any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to
possess a firearm. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendants are misinterpreting 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(33), which defines “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and provides that “[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.” 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(33)(B)(ii). Plaintiffs also allege that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which makes it unlawful for any
person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm, and 18 U.S.C. §
922(d)(9), which makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a person
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, violate their rights under the
First, Second, Fifth and Tenth Amendments."


So my question still stands....IF this goes through...it sounds like someone with a felony DV that was granted a 17(b)/1203.4 (reduction to a misdemeanor) would be granted the restoration of their gun rights on the FEDERAL level.

A girlfriend of my wife has this exact scenario...that was why I asked.

Take care,Stan

Sorry. I'm on my phone and didn't think your question through. You meant that after this case is decided and it went in the plaintiff's favor, how would it effect someone who filed a 17b. I mistakenly thought you meant that someone currently had a 17b reduction and thought they were good to go.

You stated that you know someone with this situation. I was in the Army reserve when this law passed and we have stringent background checks for customer sites at work. Many people have no idea how many people are effected by this.

BigBamBoo
04-11-2011, 8:11 PM
..........

Dreaded Claymore
04-11-2011, 9:59 PM
Well, it's simple. Since hunting witches doesn't work to redirect public anger from the real problems (and real culprits, a.k.a. the politicians who create them) anymore, we needed new groups to hype up and and blame bad crops on. Domestic violence offenders, sex offenders, gays, gun owners, blacks, and other "undesirables of the highest order". You name it, we've probably tried it...

...Another example is, say, you got into an argument at a bar. It didn't come to a fight, but you did touch the other person while gesticulating, like many people do. Well, these days you've just committed battery. If the person in question is related to you, you've just committed DV, and you're now a witch to be hunted down and scorned by the society. Your offense is worse than that of a mugger, who'll regain his rights in 10 years.

I actually am a Witch, and it makes this post unintentionally hilarious for some reason.

staryeyes
04-11-2011, 11:27 PM
FYI to someone responsible for madison-society.org,
The membership link on the left side menu of all Madison Society webpages doesn't work:
http://www.madison-society.org/join.html

I've since found that the following page does work:
http://www.madison-society.org/membership.html

JDay
04-12-2011, 12:06 AM
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. You want to get out of an argument so you ever so slightly move your spouses arm away from the door knob, by legal and jury instruction that is DV.

Most people get into trouble by telling the cops that they moved their spouse's hand to avoid a more heated argument. Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.

Actually it is any "threatening" action or action which disturbs the peace, that includes slamming the door on your way out of the house when getting away from a heated argument.

JDay
04-12-2011, 12:24 AM
I was thinking "Its about time" too, but then I realized that im actually surprised this particular item is coming up so soon. I didnt think it was low hanging fruit for sure!

If I'm not mistaken the law is up for renewal this year.

EDIT: Wrong act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

JDay
04-12-2011, 12:39 AM
Lautenberg law has a part in it that says if your other civil rights are restored, then you can own a gun. Wegrzyn v US 6th Cir. 2003 or 2004

That case applies to Michigan, they restore your rights automatically upon release from jail for a DV conviction.

http://tn.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20021003_0000349.C06.htm/qx

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.*fn2 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).

It would appear that this ruling however proves that the 2nd is a civil right.

Smokeybehr
04-12-2011, 8:02 AM
I actually am a Witch, and it makes this post unintentionally hilarious for some reason.

"How do you know she's a witch?"
"She turned me into a newt!"
"A newt?"
"I got better."

Dreaded Claymore
04-12-2011, 10:09 AM
"How do you know she's a witch?"
"She turned me into a newt!"
"A newt?"
"I got better."

Witch: "It's a fair cop..." (after balancing against a duck)

dark_ninja
04-12-2011, 11:09 AM
The 2nd Amendment is not a civil right,huh? Ridiculous!

I just made my donation to the Madison Foundation.

anthonyca
04-14-2011, 10:45 PM
The 2nd Amendment is not a civil right,huh? Ridiculous!

I just made my donation to the Madison Foundation.

Thank you.

bigstick61
04-14-2011, 11:24 PM
Then theres the whole array of people who injure themselves to claim DV, and the outright liars, and similar who were never touched.

The worst of this is the massive gender bias. Women strike men and the men are expected to shrug it off or "man up" and not press charges. They're also held to a lesser punishment in a majority of cases, even when their actions are more aggregious than some taken by men. The equal protection amendment is looked at as a joke when considering equal sentencing between men and women. This is wrong. Same crime should mean same time.

I disagree with equality before the law in this sense. Equal outcomes do not necessarily entail just outcomes for each individual case. I believe the sounder principle is that of suum cuique, to each his due. I also subscribe to the maxim that one law for the lion and the ox is oppression.

That said, the DV area seems to be really screwed up and produces many unjust outcomes. IMO the suspension of rights to such a degree is not something that in the case of a misdemeanor is warranted; to impose even a temporary restriction of this severity outside of incarceration, house arrest, etc. (to the extent said punishments are reasonable and just) is grossly unjust. I would say it is the case for many felonies as well as such a punishment does not fit the crime (although I think many things that are felonies should more appropriately be classified as misdemeanors). The punishment only fits violent and certain other crimes of considerable severity, many of which either are or should be punished by a life imprisonment or death sentence (although not in all cases).

harrison44
05-02-2011, 2:36 PM
Hi,any updates on this matter?How long could this case take?

Maestro Pistolero
05-02-2011, 4:29 PM
I'm not going to say it.

anthonyca
05-02-2011, 4:31 PM
I'm not going to say it.

I think I know what you aren't going to say.

HondaMasterTech
05-02-2011, 4:44 PM
Hi,any updates on this matter?How long could this case take?

TWO YEARS!!!

CCWFacts
05-02-2011, 5:09 PM
So instead of a man saying "I moved her out of the way so I could leave" and instead invoking his right to remain silent would he still be arrested and convicted. Or would it be dropped because it was a he said- she said and there were no marks or other incriminating evidence to go by?

Yeah, whenever the police are brought to a situation that you're involved with, REMAIN SILENT. The police themselves do this. When an officer is involved in a shooting, he gets a lawyer before he makes any statement about it. If they do it, we should all do it! If the police are there to investigate a situation and you're part of that situation, KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT, except to say, "officer, I understand you're doing your job, but I need to speak with my attorney before I can make any statement to you." If it's a self-defense shooting you could say more, like, "I acted in self defense. He broke into my house and I feared for my life. I will need to speak to my attorney before I say anything further."

desertdweller
05-02-2011, 10:21 PM
Yeah, whenever the police are brought to a situation that you're involved with, REMAIN SILENT.

Only goes so far and it can backfire in a DV investigation. Many years ago my wife and I were in a big argument and I wanted to leave. She blocked the door so I moved her out of the way (seems a DV for me). After leaving, she ran after me and told me to go back into the house and "talk about it". I was too heated to do anything but go for a walk and cool down. After telling her no, I started to walk away and she grabbed my shirt. After some more yelling outside, we went back in. Well, a short time later there was a knock on the door and guess who was there? They invited themselves in and started asking what the yelling was about, etc.. I told them I had nothing to say and I wanted them to leave. They said no and they had to make sure no one was injured. My wife comes out of the bedroom and they ask her if she is hurt. She says no and they ask me again what happened. I said I wasn't going to talk to them and so they ask her what happened. They asked what the mark on my neck was from (the pulling of my shirt) and she said; "I did that." You know what happened then - click go the bracelets and off to jail she goes. I demand a supervisor and after one arrives, I said she can't go to jail because "I did it". I was told to my face I was lying and they brought her to the car even though I told them I pushed her first, I wasn't pressing charges, I demand she stay home, etc.. I bailed her out and when it came time for her court hearing, they didn't have her on the docket. The court clerk said the DA had a year to file and luckily never did. The arrest came up when she applied for US Citizenship and we had to jump through another set of hoops to "prove" to the INS that she never was convicted of anything.

I have friend who did basically the same as above, but he got convicted and luckily didn't loose his security clearance. I understand a probationary period of non-rights, but their needs to be relief at some point. I remember when the law went into effect and many cops nationwide lost their jobs. If you want to take away someones gun rights, the conviction needs to be a felony. If it isn't, then it isn't serious enough.

Munk
05-02-2011, 11:20 PM
I disagree with equality before the law in this sense. Equal outcomes do not necessarily entail just outcomes for each individual case. I believe the sounder principle is that of suum cuique, to each his due. I also subscribe to the maxim that one law for the lion and the ox is oppression.


I do believe the punishment should fit the crime. And if the crime is "domestic violence" why is there such a disparity? Just because someone can get weepy and emotional at trial, or is rich, or is famous is no reason they should be given a lesser punishment.

I would love it if this DV crap could be straightened out so that attempting to escape or a non-violent laying of hands to defend yourself are NOT considered assaults.

I've personally known guys who were choked out or beaten bloody by their girlfriends. The cops told them to "man up" and wouldn't file their report. One of the guys went above the beat cops and got himself a report through a supervisor so that he could use it to gain custody of their kid. DV charges were still never filed against her.

Disparity in law is class/race/sexual/gender discrimination. The poor are far more likely to recieve a harsh sentence than the rich when the same crime is committed; is this not oppression? If you're talking about severity of the crime (Ox vs. Lamb), there's already a panoply of laws based on severity of attack, nature of attack, relation between attackers, actual pain inflicted, financial damages, amount of contraband, murder 1-2-3, manslaughter, homicide, negligent homicide, etc... The lamb may not do as much damage to your house if it ran into it; but they can both chew your flowers just as well.

SunTzu
05-05-2011, 11:57 AM
Lots of new info on Docket Today. I am amazed(although I shouldnt be) at the revised motion to dismiss. The Feds just ignore the basis of Kilmers arguement all together.
http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html

krucam
05-05-2011, 1:53 PM
Lots of new info on Docket Today. I am amazed(although I shouldnt be) at the revised motion to dismiss. The Feds just ignore the basis of Kilmers arguement all together.
http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html

I like the Defendants providing notice of additional authority in 17: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.17.0.pdf

The new "authority" is of course, Nordyke. It gets better, they're conceding to the Enos Court what the Nordyke panel put out...that being:

In that case, the Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ contention that strict scrutiny should apply to all gun-control regulations and held that heightened scrutiny applies only when a gun-control regulation substantially burdens the right to keep and to bear arms for self defense. 2011 WL 1632063, at *3. The Ninth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts that an Alameda County ordinance making it a misdemeanor to possess a firearm or ammunition on county property substantially burdened their right to keep and bear arms, but......

The one Golden Nugget from Nordyke, and here the Defendant's give the Enos court the one thing that will kill their own case.

If a life-long firearm prohibition isn't a "substantial burden" to the right to keep and bear arms, what is?

anthonyca
05-05-2011, 3:13 PM
I like the Defendants providing notice of additional authority in 17: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.17.0.pdf

The new "authority" is of course, Nordyke. It gets better, they're conceding to the Enos Court what the Nordyke panel put out...that being:



The one Golden Nugget from Nordyke, and here the Defendant's give the Enos court the one thing that will kill their own case.

If a life-long firearm prohibition isn't a "substantial burden" to the right to keep and bear arms, what is?

That was my question also.

JeepFreak
05-07-2011, 11:57 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.

Well put.
Billy

N6ATF
05-07-2011, 12:01 PM
If it isn't a capital offense it's not bad enough to strip the right to life.

Anchors
05-07-2011, 5:45 PM
IMO if a man got in trouble at 18 and got a felony, but is now 40 with kids to protect and a lawful member of society, why is he denied a basic right?

Either your debt to society is repaid or it isn't, don't create a second class citizen for life.

As a reasonable approach, I say that after a person finishes parole, if they go five years without committing any crimes, they should be able to buy guns again.
(Theoretically I think it should be immediately after parole is done, just make parole longer. But that will never fly).

anthonyca
05-07-2011, 5:51 PM
IMO if a man got in trouble at 18 and got a felony, but is now 40 with kids to protect and a lawful member of society, why is he denied a basic right?

Either your debt to society is repaid or it isn't, don't create a second class citizen for life.

As a reasonable approach, I say that after a person finishes parole, if they go five years without committing any crimes, they should be able to buy guns again.
(Theoretically I think it should be immediately after parole is done, just make parole longer. But that will never fly).

I know someone in close to that situation. Many people were present when the "crime" took place and you would be amazed at what he lost an "unalienable" right for.

Anchors
05-07-2011, 9:30 PM
I know someone in close to that situation. Many people were present when the "crime" took place and you would be amazed at what he lost an "unalienable" right for.

Sadly, I wouldn't be amazed in the least bit if he was jaywalking. So whatever actually happened won't shock me either...these things need to change.

SunTzu
05-09-2011, 11:25 AM
New reply by Kilmer on Docket. Kilmer takes the time to explain to the Feds what this case is about, since the feds have failed to understand it so far.

anthonyca
05-09-2011, 5:43 PM
New reply by Kilmer on Docket. Kilmer takes the time to explain to the Feds what this case is about, since the feds have failed to understand it so far.

Thank you for the update.

The Madison Society could use donations to help with this case.

Al Norris
05-09-2011, 8:05 PM
Getting ready to post the following at TFL, but since I happen to be here, you folks get it first.

As you may remember, the Nordyke decision came out last Monday (05-02-2011). The defense in Enos v. Holder immediately submitted two Notices of Supplemental Authority, citing Nordyke (05-03-2011, #17 on the Docket (http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html)) and Booker (#18 on the Docket), a criminal case from the 2nd Circuit, also filed on Monday the 2nd.

The court held a hearing on the 4th and ordered supplemental briefs from both sides (#19 on the Docket):

2011-05-04 19 0 MINUTES (Text Only) for proceedings held before Judge John A. Mendez: MOTION HEARING held on 5/4/2011 re 11 MOTION to DISMISS filed by Robert Mueller, III, Eric Holder, MOTIONS SUBMITTED: Further briefing, limited to 5 pages, to be filed by 5/11/11 and 5/18/11. Order to be prepared by Court in due course. Plaintiffs Counsel D. Kilmer present. Defendants Counsel E. Olsen present. Court Reporter: K. O'Halloran. (Vine, H) (Entered: 05/04/2011)

Donald Kilmer must have been ready for this, as on the 6th, he filed his reply brief (which wasn't due until the 11th, btw). Since the defense brought up both Nordyke and Booker, Mr. Kilmer shows exactly how they can not be used as any kind of defense.

In Nordyke, Kilmer writes:

C. Nordyke does not advance the discussion in Enos v. Holder because the federal statutes at issue impose a complete ban on all of the Enos Plaintiffs’ rights associated with the Second Amendment. In other words, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(9) and 922(g)(9) are not mere “burdens” that make gun ownership/possession more difficult or more expensive, these statutes (1) prevent the lawful transfer of a firearm at the point of sale to any person convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and (2) if found in possession, these misdemeanants are subject to arrest, prosecution and felony conviction. This statutory scheme places the Enos Plaintiffs in the exact same position as the plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), wherein the Supreme Court found that a complete ban offends the Second Amendment under any level of scrutiny. Heller at 628 et seq.

D. More to the point, the Enos Plaintiffs are not making a facial constitutional challenge of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(9) and/or § 922(g)(9), unless the rights restoration procedures under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33) are definitively interpreted to mean that there is a life time ban on exercising the fundamental rights secured by the Second Amendment.

In regards Booker, Kilmer writes:

C. This is a case about the restoration of rights, it is not about the definition of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence – or the initial consequences (loss of gun rights) upon conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

There is more, of course, but Mr. Kilmer makes the defense look rather dumb for bringing notices about cases that do not help them at all. If anything, Nordyke helps the plaintiffs, as in the (paraphrased) words of the Nordyke panel, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(9) and/or § 922(g)(9) do much more than "burden" the core right, it bans the right altogether. Booker, on the other hand, is a complete wash. It has no bearing at all.

I can't imagine how the the defense is going to spin these, so I guess we will wait and see, on or about the 18th of May.

anthonyca
05-09-2011, 10:01 PM
Getting ready to post the following at TFL, but since I happen to be here, you folks get it first.

As you may remember, the Nordyke decision came out last Monday (05-02-2011). The defense in Enos v. Holder immediately submitted two Notices of supplemental Authority, citing Nordyke (05-03-2011, #17 on the Docket (http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html)) and Booker (#18 on the Docket), a criminal case from the 2nd Circuit, also filed on Monday the 2nd.

The court held a hearing on the 4th and ordered supplemental briefs from both sides (#19 on the Docket):



Donald Kilmer must have been ready for this, as on the 6th, he filed his reply brief (which wasn't due until the 11th, btw). Since the defense brought up both Nordyke and Booker, Mr. Kilmer shows exactly how they can not be used as any kind of defense.

In Nordyke, Kilmer writes:



In regards Booker, Kilmer writes:



There is more, of course, but Mr. Kilmer makes the defense look rather dumb for bringing notices about cases that do not help them at all. If anything, Nordyke helps the plaintiffs, as in the (paraphrased) words of the Nordyke panel, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(9) and/or § 922(g)(9) do much more than "burden" the core right, it bans the right altogether. Booker, on the other hand, is a complete wash. It has no bearing at all.

I can't imagine how the the defense is going to spin these, so I guess we will wait and see, on or about the 18th of May.

Thank you Al. This is interesting.

wellerjohn
05-10-2011, 8:26 AM
I know I shouldn't say this, because someone will take it the wrong way, but here goes. The Lautenberg amendment is my favorite anti gun law. Not because it is retroactive, or that you can lose your gun rights for life on a bs misdeamor charge ( I HATE those parts of the law), but because leos are not exempt. If we could get all laws involving guns to not exempt leos, we would win the gun control fight in less than six months. I AM NOT BASHING LEOS. I just think if all the leos had to go through what we have to go through, their unions would wield their considerable power and those laws would cease to exist.

Flame on!

:hide:

Yea the safe handgun roster comes to mind. They can we can't, the police unions would have given support and pressure so the that bill would not have passed if they had to follow it.

Westerner
05-11-2011, 3:42 PM
Getting ready to post the following at TFL, but since I happen to be here, you folks get it first.

As you may remember, the Nordyke decision came out last Monday (05-02-2011). The defense in Enos v. Holder immediately submitted two Notices of Supplemental Authority, citing Nordyke (05-03-2011, #17 on the Docket (http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.docket.html)) and Booker (#18 on the Docket), a criminal case from the 2nd Circuit, also filed on Monday the 2nd.

The court held a hearing on the 4th and ordered supplemental briefs from both sides (#19 on the Docket):



Donald Kilmer must have been ready for this, as on the 6th, he filed his reply brief (which wasn't due until the 11th, btw). Since the defense brought up both Nordyke and Booker, Mr. Kilmer shows exactly how they can not be used as any kind of defense.

In Nordyke, Kilmer writes:



In regards Booker, Kilmer writes:



There is more, of course, but Mr. Kilmer makes the defense look rather dumb for bringing notices about cases that do not help them at all. If anything, Nordyke helps the plaintiffs, as in the (paraphrased) words of the Nordyke panel, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(9) and/or § 922(g)(9) do much more than "burden" the core right, it bans the right altogether. Booker, on the other hand, is a complete wash. It has no bearing at all.

I can't imagine how the the defense is going to spin these, so I guess we will wait and see, on or about the 18th of May.

That is some great stuff from Mr. Kilmer!

SunTzu
05-13-2011, 5:05 PM
Lets see if I got this right. If after the 18th the motion to dismess is denied, then would case go to summary judgement? After reading all of Kilmers Briefs I see no disputed facts. Or would feds appeal denial before judgement is ordered? And would that hold up judges Ruling?
Also since Heller and McDonald shouldnt the Gov be fighting on behalf of the Constitution?

hoffmang
05-13-2011, 5:12 PM
Lets see if I got this right. If after the 18th the motion to dismess is denied, then would case go to summary judgement?

That's generally correct.

-Gene

anthonyca
05-13-2011, 5:22 PM
That's generally correct.

-Gene

How long would that take?

SunTzu
05-13-2011, 5:24 PM
So if judge rules in favor of plantiffs would they be allowed at that point in time to purchase a firearm? And all those simularly situated to plantiffs?

ojisan
05-13-2011, 5:30 PM
How long would that take?

We all know the answer to that.

anthonyca
05-13-2011, 5:42 PM
We all know the answer to that.

Yes. I should have not asked that here. :D

hoffmang
05-13-2011, 5:58 PM
How long would that take?

:twoweeks:

:43:

-Gene

CharlesV
05-15-2011, 4:08 AM
I like that post back there about losing rights should be a tall order. Yes, very much agreed. Bill of Rights is for everyone and shouldnt be taken lightly by the courts. In MY way, a DV case can be decided any way it will and then if there is a question of losing RIGHTS, it should be a separate case and hearings and decided on its own merits. There are lots of people i think shouldnt have a gun but its RIGHTS we are talking about, not priviledges. DRIVING is not a right, its a priviledge and gun RIGHTS or anything in all the amendments shouldnt fall in that category and not taken so lightly by the citizens or the courts.

One of the common threads as i read above is that the courts (and govt ) are pressing to separate the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights in order to trample it. Indeed, even Obama has inferred that the govt should remove and stay out of the 2nd Amendment and lets the states handle their own gun laws which would be catastrophic to gun owners, the worst nightmare. (For those not catching this, it would mean that without the federal constitution to protect the right, states are now free to ban as they like and my guess is that 90% will). That, in the end is the real aim here and my advice is to stop rocking that boat by involving yourselves in DV cases in your houses and instead use that brawn and time and energy to push back against the tide coming against gun owners by forcing the govt to uphold the constitution in its complete form.

sreiter
05-16-2011, 8:04 PM
This is a rare chance to fight back. The Madison Society needs money to fight this. If everyone who felt like you donated some money to the cause we would be able to fix many of these problems.

clicked on your links..not working

anthonyca
05-16-2011, 9:24 PM
clicked on your links..not working

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

All the info is posted there.

Westerner
05-18-2011, 6:21 PM
So if judge rules in favor of plantiffs would they be allowed at that point in time to purchase a firearm? And all those simularly situated to plantiffs?

Thats a good question.Any experts here know the answer to this?

hoffmang
05-18-2011, 11:07 PM
Thats a good question.Any experts here know the answer to this?

That's the point. Once you spend your 10 years prohibited, you would become un-prohibited on day 3651.

-Gene

SunTzu
05-19-2011, 7:12 AM
In Maryland vs. Williams
"Although Williams attempts to find succor in this dicta, it is clear that prohibition of firearms in the home was the gravamen of the certiorari questions in both Heller and McDonald and their answers. If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."

OK using that Logic, Supreme Court clearly didnt mean for prohibitions on misdeaments to be included in their long standing prohibitions.

I cant for the likes of me understand why the intoduced Booker in the Enos case. It would never hold up in 9th circuit, The have constantly ruled in immagration casees regarding DV that statute cant include reckless behavior to be cause for deportation. Also with cases like Nobriga and Cisneros-Perez in the 9th circuit it makes Feds position even harder.

harrison44
05-23-2011, 8:52 AM
Hi does anyone know if the defendents filed a recent response? Thank you.

jar
05-23-2011, 11:02 AM
Hi does anyone know if the defendents filed a recent response? Thank you.

Yes, a supplemental brief was filed on Thursday. I just RECAP'd it.

SunTzu
05-23-2011, 1:24 PM
"Nordyke has very limited application to the present case. Nordyke does not address what level
of scrutiny should be applied to gun statutes directed at felons and misdemeanants – persons who
manifestly are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570,"
From the Gov. supplemental brief now on docket.

Where does Heller say Midemeanants arent law abiding citizens?
So if 15 years ago i got a speeding ticket in Nevada (a misdemeanor) I am no longer considered a law abiding citizen?
Even in this brief the feds still only address the constitutionality of 922(g)(9) and continue to ignore the basis of Kilmers arguement that its about the restoration of the right. I hope that the gun rights movement hears what the Feds are saying loud and clear " We want to take all your guns away no matter who you are"

otis_bartleh
05-23-2011, 2:24 PM
OK, so I read that brief and still fail to see where the defendants are actually defending the points of the case at hand. Anybody else read this as the defendants know they have no argument, so they are trying to confuse the matter with cases that might be of a similar nature, but are irrelevant to the situation?

Am I wrong in my understanding of this: Aren't we arguing that after mdv conviction, AND after 10 years AND after expungement, rights would be restored. Our point is to gain rights back for those that are deserving, and have completed whats required to restore rights, not to allow people still within the 10 years to possess. This does not appear to be disputed thus far, the defendant's seem to be essentially saying none of the plaintiff's should own, but can't give a valid reason why not. Am I completely off basis here?

SunTzu
05-23-2011, 5:37 PM
OK, so I read that brief and still fail to see where the defendants are actually defending the points of the case at hand. Anybody else read this as the defendants know they have no argument, so they are trying to confuse the matter with cases that might be of a similar nature, but are irrelevant to the situation?

Am I wrong in my understanding of this: Aren't we arguing that after mdv conviction, AND after 10 years AND after expungement, rights would be restored. Our point is to gain rights back for those that are deserving, and have completed whats required to restore rights, not to allow people still within the 10 years to possess. This does not appear to be disputed thus far, the defendant's seem to be essentially saying none of the plaintiff's should own, but can't give a valid reason why not. Am I completely off basis here?

I think your exactly right Otis
The only arguement I see the Feds making is that these plantiffs are not law abiding citizens. However I cant see that arguement flying, the times it has been used in other circuits the defendants had broken laws currently and in the past. The plantiffs here are seeking not to violate the law which should allow them to be considered a "Law abiding citizen"

Only legal matters i could find on the subject were:
1. Parolees are expected to be law abiding citizens
2. Illegal aliens as part of getting a visa or amnesty are required to be "law abiding citizens"

Note that both have in the past violated the law.

The one Plantiff whos conviction of 242 simple battery is being denied in clear violation of Law. The 9th circuit court has already said in Cisneros-Perez that 242 simple battery is not considered a crime of domestic violence. What about all those 273.5 convictions for roomates, relatives or casual dating relationships. How do they meet the statutory definition of similarly situated to a spouse?

As I posted earlier if misdeamenants are not considered "law abiding Citizens" then we all are in a lot of trouble. This concept being taken on by the courts needs to be shot down in a hurry before it makes bad precedent and becomes an excuse to violate all of our Civil rights.

anthonyca
05-23-2011, 6:29 PM
I think your exactly right Otis
The only arguement I see the Feds making is that these plantiffs are not law abiding citizens. However I cant see that arguement flying, the times it has been used in other circuits the defendants had broken laws currently and in the past. The plantiffs here are seeking not to violate the law which should allow them to be considered a "Law abiding citizen"

Only legal matters i could find on the subject were:
1. Parolees are expected to be law abiding citizens
2. Illegal aliens as part of getting a visa or amnesty are required to be "law abiding citizens"

Note that both have in the past violated the law.

The one Plantiff whos conviction of 242 simple battery is being denied in clear violation of Law. The 9th circuit court has already said in Cisneros-Perez that 242 simple battery is not considered a crime of domestic violence. What about all those 273.5 convictions for roomates, relatives or casual dating relationships. How do they meet the statutory definition of similarly situated to a spouse?

As I posted earlier if misdeamenants are not considered "law abiding Citizens" then we all are in a lot of trouble. This concept being taken on by the courts needs to be shot down in a hurry before it makes bad precedent and becomes an excuse to violate all of our Civil rights.

What about this? http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-hayes/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

SunTzu
05-23-2011, 6:48 PM
Us vs Hayes was statutory interpertation.
9th circuit court ruled that a 242 simple assault does not have the required willful element of use of force and injury to meet federal definition of a violent act and therefore was not Domestic violence. You should read it. Hopefully the courts will apply the same standards for its citizens as it does for illegal aliens.

There are many deportation cases that i see could be used for the 2nd ammendment cases in the 9th circuit.

Anchors
05-23-2011, 7:02 PM
Us vs Hayes was statutory interpertation.
9th circuit court ruled that a 242 simple assault does not have the required willful element of use of force and injury to meet federal definition of a violent act and therefore was not Domestic violence. You should read it. Hopefully the courts will apply the same standards for its citizens as it does for illegal aliens.

There are many deportation cases that i see could be used for the 2nd ammendment cases in the 9th circuit.

Good point. Since the 9th likes to politic from the bench, turning their own decisions regarding illegal immigration/deportation against them would be pretty awesome.

Westerner
05-23-2011, 7:18 PM
Someone had mentioned this here, and I am also a little curious. Why isn't the (Wegrzyn vs US) case not mentioned on this matter??

anthonyca
05-23-2011, 7:37 PM
Us vs Hayes was statutory interpertation.
9th circuit court ruled that a 242 simple assault does not have the required willful element of use of force and injury to meet federal definition of a violent act and therefore was not Domestic violence. You should read it. Hopefully the courts will apply the same standards for its citizens as it does for illegal aliens.

There are many deportation cases that i see could be used for the 2nd ammendment cases in the 9th circuit.

Thank you. I have read some other imigration cases and they seem to go easy on illegals when they are about to be deported.

There is also a case out of the ninth from Hawaii where they ruled that disorderly conduct was too broad and didn't meet the lautenberg amendment. Hawaii's disorderly conduct is very similar to California's disorderly conduct.

Isn't there a plaintiff in this case who is being denied for disorderly conduct?

harrison44
05-24-2011, 11:19 AM
Yes, a supplemental brief was filed on Thursday. I just RECAP'd it.

Thank you appreciate the update.

JagerTroop
05-24-2011, 11:32 AM
If someone commits a crime which is so horrible that makes them such a dangerous person that they cannot be trusted to own a gun they are probably not trustworthy enough to be free in society.

It's very possible the entire concept of firearm prohibition needs to be redefined.

Absolutely.

dad
05-25-2011, 8:34 PM
Words you will not hear in a California court, the Lautenberg amendment, and you are banded for life from guns!

SunTzu
05-25-2011, 9:13 PM
This case and Guras Schrader v Holder in my opinion are the 2 most important cases out there. They set a bottom threshold on diqualifyers that can ban gun ownership. Example you win shall issue case. Legislators just come back and add to the list of misdeamenors that can't get you banned for 10 years or life.
These cases will be seen far more important in the future if successful.

Spartan
05-26-2011, 5:57 AM
Someone had mentioned this here, and I am also a little curious. Why isn't the (Wegrzyn vs US) case not mentioned on this matter??

Good question, the feds claim in Enos that this is not a civil rights issue. Wegrzyn is the only case on the books (that I know of) in the US that went against Lautenberg.

SunTzu
05-26-2011, 12:18 PM
Good question, the feds claim in Enos that this is not a civil rights issue. Wegrzyn is the only case on the books (that I know of) in the US that went against Lautenberg.

Wergrzyn held that the loss of one civil right (in this case voting) and the being automatically restored was sufficient to meet the restoration of civil rights standard in Lauetenberg ammendment. The feds argued in that case aswell as in Enos that restoration of civil rights means the big 3: Vote, Jury, Public Office. However Logan was decided before 2nd ammendment was considered a fundemental right. This really iis basis of Kilmers arguement 2nd amendment rights restored by operation of law after 10 years. It is a big stretch to argue that one of the bill of rights is not as important as their Big 3.

dad
05-30-2011, 8:39 PM
Could some one tell/show me, where/what is subparagraph (C) is? And what does the number 2 mean or stand for? I would appreciate it very much!



(33)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C),2

Wolverine
05-30-2011, 9:57 PM
Could some one tell/show me, where/what is subparagraph (C) is? And what does the number 2 mean or stand for? I would appreciate it very much!



(33)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C),2

The number 2 refers to Footnote 2 which reads "So in original. No subparagraph (C) has been enacted"
I would guess this means there is no subparagraph (C), so there is no exception to (A).

otis_bartleh
05-31-2011, 4:01 PM
So would a win here change the DROS, or how would a plaintiff in the case answer the first question? It asks about ever being convicted of a felony or crime listed in 12021; or convicted of assault, battery, etc. within the past 10 years. The answer is yes to the first part of the question, but no to the second part of the question.

Would the win here mean that after the 10 years and expungement, a plaintiff could answer NO to that question, and still be cleared even though he has been convicted of a crime listed in 12021? That is one of the point's, right, that the Fed's acknowledge the California expungement? Was just thinking about that last night, and was unsure how that would work, or if that is even known yet...

Westerner
06-01-2011, 12:06 PM
I think one would just check NO. Since the 10 years has already lapsed.....

harrison44
06-16-2011, 4:14 PM
Hi folks any recent briefs on this case? Or is it just a long waiting game now? Thank you

dad
06-16-2011, 6:55 PM
Still waiting, still checking this thread 3-4 times a day!

anthonyca
06-16-2011, 7:07 PM
Still waiting, still checking this thread 3-4 times a day!

It's agonizing waiting for these rulings. :mad:

Anchors
06-16-2011, 7:39 PM
an ex GF of mine tried to get me a DV, fortunately a roomate was there & she told the cops the truth, I never touched her and never threatened. She had called the cops ( I was living in Frisco @ the time ) and said I was "had locked myself in my room, was heavily armed and unresponsive" ( if your GF is a lawyer DO NOT win an argument if you value your sanity/freedom ) ... I was indeed "armed" as I owned a bunch of guns at the time, I was unresponsive because it was 2am & I was sleeping! The door was locked because I had my own room and didn't feel like arguing.

something like 5 cop cars showed up.

Wow. Glad you made it out a free man.

I used to know a guy who claimed his DV conviction was because his wife grabbed his 35 mm camera and swung it at his head. When he dodged, the camera continued through its arc and hit her in the face. Of course he could be exaggerating. However, I've read enough stories about men convicted of DV for things that a sensible jury would toss back into the DA's face with the admonition to stop wasting the taxpayers' money and go after some real criminals.

IBTL.

Wow even more.

Years ago I worked at a local DA's office as a CSO and it seems half my time was spent on DV cases. I'm glad to see others agree with me as the entire process left me sickened and with the mentality that you don't want cops in your life PERIOD.

Time and time again I saw men convicted in court or plead out to a DV charge because they non violently moved their girlfriend or wife out of their way while they were leaving the room. Nothing would have happened had their neighbors not called the police because they heard an argument.

Don't get me wrong, there really were wife beaters and husband beaters we dealt with but who in their right mind thinks that punching a woman in the face and non violently moving any part of her body deserve the same punishment?

I hope they win and I'll be giving them a donation.

That sucks. I think I need to donate to this case...

dunndeal
06-16-2011, 8:44 PM
Donation sent.

krucam
06-24-2011, 5:06 PM
I searched for "Enos" and the latest/greatest thread I saw was here...surprised Lex Arma didn't chime in with this yet!

Last week, Mr Kilmer filed a notice of Supplemental Authority (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.23.0.pdf) in Enos. Typically in a 2A case, another 2A case is brought up as a Supplement.

Think 10A, not 2A. Think the US Supreme Court decision in Bond v United States...

anthonyca
06-24-2011, 9:20 PM
I searched for "Enos" and the latest/greatest thread I saw was here...surprised Lex Arma didn't chime in with this yet!

Last week, Mr Kilmer filed a notice of Supplemental Authority (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.23.0.pdf) in Enos. Typically in a 2A case, another 2A case is brought up as a Supplement.

Think 10A, not 2A. Think the US Supreme Court decision in Bond v United States...

More good reading by the great Mr. Kilmer. We are so fortunate to have these scholars on out side. Don Kilmer, Jason Davis, Chuck Michele and his whole team, Alan Gura, don Kates, David Hardy. ( I know I am missing some others). Then we have the non lawyer "right people" and the greatest grass roots anyone can ask for.

Can I ask how you found that? I just looked for an update today around 2 and found nothing.

I am going to donate to the Madison Society again to support this case.

Westerner
06-26-2011, 11:34 PM
This is great,a big step towards more liberty for all of us gun owners.

krucam
06-27-2011, 5:31 AM
Can I ask how you found that? I just looked for an update today around 2 and found nothing.

I am going to donate to the Madison Society again to support this case.

It wouldn't have been on the Internet Archive docket until I pulled it (RECAP) around 7:58pm EDT on 6/24.

donw
06-27-2011, 7:48 AM
I've seen it more times than I care to mention. And it's fracking amazing how the presumption of innocence goes right out the window in DV cases.

it's amazing how convoluted the DV laws are isn't it?

it's odd...a woman can strike a man and it's called "self defense"...a man hits a woman in self defense and it's called "assault" or "domestic violence"...:confused:

SunTzu
06-27-2011, 12:31 PM
Well looks like the Feds are going to lose standing issue now for sure. I see know reason why this case shouldnt go to summary judgement. Any Legal minds have an opinion on this?

anthonyca
06-27-2011, 3:56 PM
it's amazing how convoluted the DV laws are isn't it?

it's odd...a woman can strike a man and it's called "self defense"...a man hits a woman in self defense and it's called "assault" or "domestic violence"...:confused:

I have posted the following before. Most people don't know you don't have to hit anyone to get a dv.

I was asked to post some supporting documentation showing that ANY touching of clothing or the person is battery. This is mainly based on California jury instruction but it is similar in many places and SCOTUS talks about it in reference to 922.

While a second amendment argument was not raised, and the case concerned the 15 year ACCA not lautenberg, the issue of "unwanted touching" and misdemeanor lauterberg did come up in this case.http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?...Johnson_v._U.S.

The US attorney, bought up lautenberg, to the chagrin of Scalia, and argued that if they invalidated the ACCA (felony) for the slightest touching, with no injury, misdemeanor lautenberg would be comprimized.

Scalia wrote the opinion and said they were not addressing lautenberg as that was a misdemeanor and this was a felony. Johnson's case was originally a misdemeanor but under Florida law was automatically elevated to a felony due to a prior misdemeanor conviction for battery.

Johnson won his case and his conviction was reversed in a 7-2 ruling. Alito and Thomas dissented and explicitly stated that this would harm the use of lautenberg, for the same no injury touching. So the US attorney had and augment somewhat backfire on the definition of "use of force", the majority did not address the misdemeanor question, and the dissenters said this ruling would effect lautenberg on "use of force" issues. Hmmmmmm. Second amendment was not raised. What will this mean to a lautenberg challenge?

From SCOTUS Blog;

"The majority and the dissent disputed the implications of the Court’s decision. Justice Alito warned that the decision will remove statutes involving both the use of violent force and offensive touching from the scope of the ACCA; moreover, he cautioned, the decision renders the removal of aliens convicted of domestic violence more difficult insofar as the relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E), defines “domestic violence” to include the use or attempted use of “physical force.” The majority downplayed Justice Alito’s concerns as “exaggerate[ing] the practical effect of our decision,” and it pointed to the government’s success in obtaining ACCA convictions under the modified categorical approach, which allows a court to determine the basis for conviction by consulting the trial record. Though absence or incompleteness of records may make a modified categorical approach less plausible in some cases, the majority explained, it does not follow that Congress meant to avoid that “common enough consequence” by “import[ing] a term of art [into the ACCA] that is a comical misfit with the defined term ‘violent felony.’” "

Here is an interesting part. California misdemeanor battery 242, and domestic battery, 243e, does state; "A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another", but California jury instructions state that ANY touching weather it be on the person, clothing, causes pain or injury or not, was intended to cause pain or not, and no matter how slight, constitutes a battery. Back to the "force" definition. A few federal courts have ruled that states with misdemeanor battery statutes such as Florida, Hawaii, and I think Wyoming, don't meet lautenberg because they also include offensive touching. What about California jury instructions?

Examples;

Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 841- Simple Battery: Against Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (Penal Code 243(e)(1)). ("The slightest touching can be enough to commit a [domestic] battery if it is done in a rude or angry way. Making contact with another person, including through his or her clothing, is enough. The touching does not have to cause pain or injury of any kind."

People v. Rocha, (1971) 3 Cal.3d 893, 900 ("‘It has long been established, both in tort and criminal law, that the least touching' may constitute battery. In other words, force against the person is enough, it need not be violent or severe, it need not cause bodily harm or even pain, and it need not leave any mark.'"

Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 841- Simple Battery: Against Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (Domestic battery, Penal Code pc 243(e)(1)). ("Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt someone else, or gain any advantage."

Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction 841- Simple Battery: Against Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (Domestic battery, Penal Code 243(e)(1)). ("[The touching can be done indirectly by causing an object [or someone else] to touch the other person.

I can't answer your question, sorry. This may be of interest. 7th circuit ruled that intermediate scrutiny is to be used in lautenberg cases. and reversed and remanded a conviction. http://volokh.com/2010/02/22/seventh...koien-en-banc/

I also know of someone who challenged this case in a somewhat back door way. The judge did say that the man was correct and his conviction should be reversed, but it would be too important to many other second amendment cases and it was dissmissed with out prejudice. He is looking to go it again.

It's amazing to me that many hate wife beaters ( I do too) but they are legally defined as wife/ husband beaters and child abusers.

Bend
06-27-2011, 4:38 PM
That's the point. Once you spend your 10 years prohibited, you would become un-prohibited on day 3651.

-Gene

Nit-

Un-prohibited day is either 3652 or 3653 depending on how many leap years in the 10 year span.

365 1/4 x 10 = 3652.5, the last day is still within the 10 years.

:hide:

hoffmang
06-27-2011, 7:22 PM
Nit-

Un-prohibited day is either 3652 or 3653 depending on how many leap years in the 10 year span.

365 1/4 x 10 = 3652.5, the last day is still within the 10 years.

:hide:

LOL, you got me. However, I'm not sure if the law recognizes leap days in the count. It probably just handles it as the 10th anniversary which can be a variety of day counts.

-Gene

Scarecrow Repair
06-27-2011, 10:37 PM
Nit-

Un-prohibited day is either 3652 or 3653 depending on how many leap years in the 10 year span.

365 1/4 x 10 = 3652.5, the last day is still within the 10 years.

:hide:

As a further nit, if the sentence spans the non-leap year century change, it could be exactly 3651.

Westerner
06-28-2011, 12:27 PM
Well looks like the Feds are going to lose standing issue now for sure. I see know reason why this case shouldnt go to summary judgement. Any Legal minds have an opinion on this?

same here.

Hoff, bweise,oaklander?

anthonyca
06-28-2011, 5:48 PM
same here.

Hoff, bweise,oaklander?

The DV aspect of this case makes it like the plague. I believe many leaders in the RKBA movement don't want the other side miss quoting them as wanting to give guns to wife beaters and child abusers.

MP301
06-29-2011, 3:30 PM
The DV aspect of this case makes it like the plague. I believe many leaders in the RKBA movement don't want the other side miss quoting them as wanting to give guns to wife beaters and child abusers.

Thats the problem for sure. But being convicted of Misd. DV does not a wife beater make necessarily. The Pro RKBA folks that dont have a clue before jumping on the torch and pitchfork bandwagon really need to get said clue.

Besides, show me another right that can be lost for life (or even 10 years) for a Misd. Conviction. Thats stupid on its face.

krucam
06-29-2011, 4:00 PM
Thats the problem for sure. But being convicted of Misd. DV does not a wife beater make necessarily. The Pro RKBA folks that dont have a clue before jumping on the torch and pitchfork bandwagon really need to get said clue.

Besides, show me another right that can be lost for life (or even 10 years) for a Misd. Conviction. Thats stupid on its face.

Well said. Enos (CA) and Schrader (DC) will go a long way towards fixing this. For too long, we've allowed the bar to be set too low for our rights...rights that are now deemed "Fundamental" thanks to McDonald. 40+ cases in the Federal Courts will raise that bar.

Gen2, which will begin after these current cases run their course, will surprise us all...

GW
06-29-2011, 4:19 PM
Can someone explain to this ignoramus (me) how an ex-post facto law such a s Lautenberg's wasn't tossed as soon as it was passed?
I am utterly lost here as I thought there was some constitutional prohibition against this.

help me understand
PLEASE!!!

tabrisnet
06-29-2011, 5:06 PM
Can someone explain to this ignoramus (me) how an ex-post facto law such a s Lautenberg's wasn't tossed as soon as it was passed?
I am utterly lost here as I thought there was some constitutional prohibition against this.

help me understand
PLEASE!!!

It is not an ex post facto law, as it does not create a crime that can be enforced retroactively, but rather creates a new punishment that applies to prior convictions (but is only in force after the enactment of the law in question).

SunTzu
06-29-2011, 5:21 PM
It is not an ex post facto law, as it does not create a crime that can be enforced retroactively, [B][B][B]but rather creates a new punishment that applies to prior convictions (but is only in force after the enactment of the law in question).

Which is exactly why it is Ex post facto or bill of attainder.
Rulings against it being Ex post facto were all based on 2nd ammendment not being a civil right. Now that the SCOTUS has declared it a fundemental right it is an increase in punishment as it removes a civil right for a conviction that occured before the passage of the law. Only problem now is getting the courts to follow the constitution and not its political idealogy.

MP301
06-29-2011, 5:27 PM
Yes, they decided that it was ok to pass this law because no one that had a gun after the Misd. DV conviction would be rwtroactively prosecuted for it. The problem is that after Lautenberg passed, they had to give up thier guns.

Now, i know if a few people that would have fought to the bitter end instead of taking a DV conviction had they known they would lose thier gun rights and thier Military or Law Enforcement careers. Most military and LE can get a DUI and not lose thier jobs and only temporarily lose thier driving "privledges".

Its wrong on its face and I would even say that CA's 10 year prohibition is taking it way to far as well. Anything can happen that results in a DV conviction one time. I can understand in increased penalties for subsequent DV misdemeanors because someone obviously did not learn from previous experiences, (being in better control of yourself, ending a unhealthy relationship, or whatever). But first time offenders losing probably thier most impolrtant right of self defense for life for a Misd. is just plain wrong.

SunTzu
06-29-2011, 5:36 PM
Yes, they decided that it was ok to pass this law because no one that had a gun after the Misd. DV conviction would be rwtroactively prosecuted for it. The problem is that after Lautenberg passed, they had to give up thier guns.

Now, i know if a few people that would have fought to the bitter end instead of taking a DV conviction had they known they would lose thier gun rights and thier Military or Law Enforcement careers. Most military and LE can get a DUI and not lose thier jobs and only temporarily lose thier driving "privledges".

Its wrong on its face and I would even say that CA's 10 year prohibition is taking it way to far as well. Anything can happen that results in a DV conviction one time. I can understand in increased penalties for subsequent DV misdemeanors because someone obviously did not learn from previous experiences, (being in better control of yourself, ending a unhealthy relationship, or whatever). But first time offenders losing probably thier most impolrtant right of self defense for life for a Misd. is just plain wrong.

You better believe it. I am one of those people. convicted in 1994 for an arguement that turned ugly at a bar with my girlfriend at the time. Not a spouse didnt live together but still banned for life. $25 dollar fine no DV counseling. Sure seemed like a no brainer plea bargain to me. WRONG!
Had i fought it i would have won easily but being young and stupid, trying to just get it behind me, I am now branded a wife beater. To many look at just the conviction not the actual facts and what I havemade of my life.

tabrisnet
06-29-2011, 5:58 PM
Which is exactly why it is Ex post facto or bill of attainder.


No, it is neither. It does not create a new crime that is enforced retroactively, it only creates a new law for which the enforcement is contingent on prior findings of fact.

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-post_facto



A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

tabrisnet
06-29-2011, 6:00 PM
To clarify, I am not saying that the law is right. I am only saying that neither principle is directly applicable.

SunTzu
06-29-2011, 7:40 PM
a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. ...
Right, now as a consequence of my DV conviction I am banned from owning guns for life. Removal of ones civil rights is an increase in punishment after the fact.

anthonyca
06-29-2011, 9:15 PM
Thats the problem for sure. But being convicted of Misd. DV does not a wife beater make necessarily. The Pro RKBA folks that dont have a clue before jumping on the torch and pitchfork bandwagon really need to get said clue.

Besides, show me another right that can be lost for life (or even 10 years) for a Misd. Conviction. Thats stupid on its face.

I should have put a sarcastic face in there. I know many people who have a DV conviction are not "wife beaters". That's why I wrote post #147 and started this thread. Not very clear on my part since I mostly post from my phone.

anthonyca
06-30-2011, 7:23 PM
LOL, you got me. However, I'm not sure if the law recognizes leap days in the count. It probably just handles it as the 10th anniversary which can be a variety of day counts.

-Gene

Gene,

Can you please elaborate on your comment on Of Arms And The Law?

"This case has to be read in parallel with US v Skoien out of CA-7...
-Gene"

hoffmang
06-30-2011, 7:38 PM
Gene,

Can you please elaborate on your comment on Of Arms And The Law?

"This case has to be read in parallel with US v Skoien out of CA-7...
-Gene"

Read the en-banc opinion in US v. Skoien especially what they said about California law.

-Gene

anthonyca
06-30-2011, 7:50 PM
Read the en-banc opinion in US v. Skoien especially what they said about California law.

-Gene

Nice. I brought that up in another thread. I even quoted what they said.

For those of you that don't know what we are talking about. The 7th said that misd DV is not a lifetime prohibition due to avenues for relief. They used California expungement as an example. The Feds are saying California expungement doesn't count because it's not complete expungement.

I have wanted someone to use that since I read those words.

dad
06-30-2011, 7:57 PM
Nice. I brought that up in another thread. I even quoted what they said.

For those of you that don't know what we are talking about. The 7th said that misd DV is not a lifetime prohibition due to avenues for relief. They used California expungement as an example. The Feds are saying California expungement doesn't count because it's not complete expungement.

I have wanted someone to use that since I read those words.

Why is it not a complete expungement?

anthonyca
06-30-2011, 8:23 PM
Why is it not a complete expungement?

Exactly.

The ATF says, because the conviction can still be used as a prior offense for sentencing if one is arrested and convicted again.

Expungement was recognized in California for a while. There is even a memo from the California attorney general stating the change and it's implication on LEOs and others.

MP301
06-30-2011, 9:39 PM
Exactly.

The ATF says, because the conviction can still be used as a prior offense for sentencing if one is arrested and convicted again.

Expungement was recognized in California for a while. There is even a memo from the California attorney general stating the change and it's implication on LEOs and others.

Yes. DOJ keeps every piece of dirt about you forever. Even if you get something expunged, if the FEDs can see it on thier compouter screen, it happend and therefore meets thier needs for prohibition.

tabrisnet
07-01-2011, 8:14 AM
a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. ...
Right, now as a consequence of my DV conviction I am banned from owning guns for life. Removal of ones civil rights is an increase in punishment after the fact.

Per my best understanding of the law and definition of ex post facto (note that the wiki definition I gave is _not_ a law dictionary), ex post facto specifically speaks to creating a crime that allows you to be convicted for something that was not illegal at the time.

That is not what has occurred here. Rather, this was a new law that affects you only forward from the date of enactment, as related to a prior conviction. (In a court of law, a conviction is a finding of fact... one that is not in question unless the case before the court is an appeal of that specific conviction).

If one of the resident lawyers, law students, etc wish to step forward to correct this (non-lawyer's) reasoning, please do so.

Further, ex post facto or not has _no_ bearing on whether this is a civil rights issue or a 2nd amendment issue, nor whether there are other legitimate legal claims for overturning the law in question.

anthonyca
07-01-2011, 9:17 AM
Per my best understanding of the law and definition of ex post facto (note that the wiki definition I gave is _not_ a law dictionary), ex post facto specifically speaks to creating a crime that allows you to be convicted for something that was not illegal at the time.

That is not what has occurred here. Rather, this was a new law that affects you only forward from the date of enactment, as related to a prior conviction. (In a court of law, a conviction is a finding of fact... one that is not in question unless the case before the court is an appeal of that specific conviction).

If one of the resident lawyers, law students, etc wish to step forward to correct this (non-lawyer's) reasoning, please do so.

Further, ex post facto or not has _no_ bearing on whether this is a civil rights issue or a 2nd amendment issue, nor whether there are other legitimate legal claims for overturning the law in question.

See http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html.Scroll down to the legal definition of ex post facto.
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Does ANYONE. even antis or the government, honestly believe taking away a fundamental civil and human right after the fact is not an increase in punishment?

When the past cases of lautenberg ex post facto were decided the courts weaseled out of the truth because the 2nd was not considered an individual right by caselaw.

SunTzu
07-01-2011, 10:04 AM
"Further, ex post facto or not has _no_ bearing on whether this is a civil rights issue or a 2nd amendment issue, nor whether there are other legitimate legal claims for overturning the law in question. "

I have to respectfully disagree. please read "ex Post Facto Laws"

http://www.cjjohns.com/cjjohns/radios/expost.html

The only way you can say its Not ex post facto is if you dont believe it is an increase in punishment for the crime of DV prior to enactment of the law. However i believe that stripping someone of their right to bear arms solely based on a conviction that happened prior to enactment of the law has to be ex post facto, and consider it an increase in punishment.
Look at arguements about Crack vs cocaine sentencing in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Government has said argued it cant apply retroactivily because it would violate Ex Post Facto Clause of constitution.

Ask yourself this: If congress today decided that anyone who ever had a speeding ticket in their life was no longer allowed to own or purchase a vehicle for the rest of their life. Made it against the law for car dealerships to sell you a vehicle. For the safety of the children of course. And gave you zero days to comply with the law. Forcing you to dispose of private property for a crime commited 10 20 or even 30 years ago. Would you not find it Ex Post Facto?

anthonyca
07-01-2011, 10:44 AM
"Further, ex post facto or not has _no_ bearing on whether this is a civil rights issue or a 2nd amendment issue, nor whether there are other legitimate legal claims for overturning the law in question. "

I have to respectfully disagree. please read "ex Post Facto Laws"

http://www.cjjohns.com/cjjohns/radios/expost.html

The only way you can say its Not ex post facto is if you dont believe it is an increase in punishment for the crime of DV prior to enactment of the law. However i believe that stripping someone of their right to bear arms solely based on a conviction that happened prior to enactment of the law has to be ex post facto, and consider it an increase in punishment.
Look at arguements about Crack vs cocaine sentencing in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Government has said argued it cant apply retroactivily because it would violate Ex Post Facto Clause of constitution.

Ask yourself this: If congress today decided that anyone who ever had a speeding ticket in their life was no longer allowed to own or purchase a vehicle for the rest of their life. Made it against the law for car dealerships to sell you a vehicle. For the safety of the children of course. And gave you zero days to comply with the law. Forcing you to dispose of private property for a crime commited 10 20 or even 30 years ago. Would you not find it Ex Post Facto?

Almost everyone would say that is ex post facto, because it affects them. Too many people don't pay attention until a law comes after them so we get this creeping incermentalism.

tabrisnet
07-01-2011, 4:00 PM
Whether or not it affects me should have no bearing on whether I think it is /ex post facto/. I would not like it, I would believe it wrong. But my feelings as to whether it is fair should have no relevance.

The world isn't fair, justice isn't personal, and the universe doesn't give a damn. That's our job. To give a damn and fight back. Preferably not by trying to trick mother nature (cuz she sure as hell cannot be fooled), not any other form of intellectual dishonesty.

And yes, the problem with such laws is that those who back their passage think them acceptable because they think "I'm a good person, so this will never happen to me. Those to whom it will, /deserve/ it. They did something /bad/."

I have no such faith, and endeavor to have no such delusions.

SunTzu
07-01-2011, 4:25 PM
Tabrisnet,
I meant nothing personel was just enjoying the point counter point arguement and look forward to your response and reasoning.

anthonyca
07-01-2011, 10:29 PM
Tabrisnet,
I meant nothing personel was just enjoying the point counter point arguement and look forward to your response and reasoning.

I also meant nothing personal.

Have you changed your mind, or are we still wrong ?

tabrisnet
07-02-2011, 9:10 AM
I have not changed my mind... and I did not take any of this personally.

I do find it odd that the courts may have said it was not ex post facto merely because it was not a civil right (prior to McDonald/Heller), as one would expect them to find a much narrower excuse why it was not. But per my interpretation, ex post facto should not hinge on what sanction is being taken, nor how it relates to specific rights. To put it differently, the individual articles of the Bill of Rights's ought be of equal standing, none immediately subordinate to any other.

Perhaps we can now claim that, per McDonald/Heller, it would be considered cruel & unusual to exact such a penalty on a misdemeanant, such that they are refused the right to defend themselves in their otherwise law-behaving lives.

To go back to the car analogy (hahaha. slashdot anyone?), what if the state were to, instead of requiring us to sell our cars forthwith, require us to put up a 40kUSD bond or get special [expensive] insurance if we have ever had a speeding ticket. And then ask yourself how that is not already the case (having speeding tickets on your record means you pay a LOT more for your insurance).

M107A1
07-06-2011, 7:14 PM
Does anyone know how long the court has before they have to make a ruling in the "motion to dismiss" in this case?

Librarian
07-06-2011, 7:58 PM
Does anyone know how long the court has before they have to make a ruling in the "motion to dismiss" in this case?

"have to"? - no limit.

anthonyca
07-06-2011, 8:49 PM
Does anyone know how long the court has before they have to make a ruling in the "motion to dismiss" in this case?

Welcome. There is a standard answer here to any question like that. I even fell for it in this thread.

M107A1
07-06-2011, 9:29 PM
Originally Posted by M107A1
Does anyone know how long the court has before they have to make a ruling in the "motion to dismiss" in this case?

"have to"? - no limit.

Originally Posted by M107A1
Does anyone know how long the court has before they have to make a ruling in the "motion to dismiss" in this case?

Welcome. There is a standard answer here to any question like that. I even fell for it in this thread.

thanks, I appreciate the information. Hopefully the ruling is sooner than later!!!

anthonyca
07-06-2011, 9:57 PM
thanks, I appreciate the information. Hopefully the ruling is sooner than later!!!

Sorry for the smart &$$ answer. We have been waiting for a long time and it's agonizing.

SunTzu
07-07-2011, 7:45 AM
My hypothetical:
The Judge is looking for any way he can to justify the feds position and cant.
Lautenberg Ammendment has clearly stated in the law that there is a method and pathway for rights restoration. (Meaning it is not meant to be a lifetime ban on those who turn their life around)
Feds have no mechanism for rights restoration, so ones only choice is States mechanism.
I really dont see this ever getting to the constitutionality phase.

M107A1
07-07-2011, 6:37 PM
Sorry for the smart &$$ answer. We have been waiting for a long time and it's agonizing.
That's OK, I am glad that you at least responded so promptly. I just found out about this case not too long ago and even for the short time that I have known about it up until now still seems like a long time. Hopefully a favorable verdict for "Pro 2A" will be well worth the wait. It looks like D. Kilmer has all the basis covered.

M107A1
07-07-2011, 6:52 PM
My hypothetical:
The Judge is looking for any way he can to justify the feds position and cant.
Lautenberg Ammendment has clearly stated in the law that there is a method and pathway for rights restoration. (Meaning it is not meant to be a lifetime ban on those who turn their life around)
Feds have no mechanism for rights restoration, so ones only choice is States mechanism.
I really dont see this ever getting to the constitutionality phase.

Hopefully this case is a slam dunk for "Pro 2A" based on what you said. It seems that so far, the feds have skirted around and around with the restoration mechanism [18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)] and hopefully they have finally run out of rope.

dad
07-07-2011, 7:09 PM
11,862 have view this thread, and want their 2A back.

"When I believe in something, I fight like hell for it."

Steve McQueen

anthonyca
07-07-2011, 8:09 PM
11,862 have view this thread, and want their 2A back.

"When I believe in something, I fight like hell for it."

Steve McQueen

Imagine if they all gave a few bucks to http://www.madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm or the calguns foundation. We would be really taking it to them.

hoffmang
07-08-2011, 1:04 PM
Enos survived (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf) the motion to dismiss. One can interpret that as Enos is very likely to prevail.

Heck of a week for gun rights.

-Gene

anthonyca
07-08-2011, 1:31 PM
Enos survived (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf) the motion to dismiss. One can interpret that as Enos is very likely to prevail.

Heck of a week for gun rights.

-Gene

Whhhhooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Great news.

anthonyca
07-08-2011, 1:37 PM
Enos survived (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf) the motion to dismiss. One can interpret that as Enos is very likely to prevail.

Heck of a week for gun rights.

-Gene

I'm on my phone so I just skmmed through. On line 12, is the court saying that only enos was not dismissed and the other defendants were?

Lex Arma
07-08-2011, 1:45 PM
I'm on my phone so I just skmmed through. On line 12, is the court saying that only enos was not dismissed and the other defendants were?

Uhm, most of the plaintiffs were dismissed -- so Yes, but it will be pretty easy to amend to keep those plaintiffs in the case. They just have to go out and get denied a gun purchase.

wildhawker
07-08-2011, 1:45 PM
Yes, but Don can include them in the ordered amended complaint as long as he can provide for their standing. Only the 1A, 5A, and 10A claims were dismissed with prejudice.

anthonyca
07-08-2011, 1:59 PM
Uhm, most of the plaintiffs were dismissed -- so Yes, but it will be pretty easy to amend to keep those plaintiffs in the case. They just have to go out and get denied a gun purchase.

That was my next question. Would it be a straw purchase if I bought one of them a gun?:D

Great work.

Westerner
07-08-2011, 5:10 PM
That was my next question. Would it be a straw purchase if I bought one of them a gun?:D

Great work.

Lol :D

SunTzu
07-08-2011, 5:11 PM
That was my next question. Would it be a straw purchase if I bought one of them a gun?

I would think so. Great news for Enos, but it amazes me that one must violate the law to be able to fight the law. The two plantiffs that were dismissed earlier in my opinion and 9th circuit precedent shouldnt have been denied purchases in the first place. But hey look at Gunwalker, Feds dont have to obey the laws anyway

M107A1
07-08-2011, 6:18 PM
Hopefully, most if not all of the remaining plaintiffs are able to go get denied so Don can amend within the twenty days. What would be the advantage of having the remaining plaintiffs get denied as opposed to just having Enos as the only plaintiff? At least the case is still alive. That is grrrrrrreat news!!! After the leave to amend, what would be the next step? Does there still need to be oral arguments or can the judge just decide the case with only documentation provided from both sides?:D

anthonyca
07-08-2011, 6:33 PM
That was my next question. Would it be a straw purchase if I bought one of them a gun?

I would think so. Great news for Enos, but it amazes me that one must violate the law to be able to fight the law. The two plantiffs that were dismissed earlier in my opinion and 9th circuit precedent shouldnt have been denied purchases in the first place. But hey look at Gunwalker, Feds dont have to obey the laws anyway

This is part of the reason why "bad plaintiffs" dominate most 2nd amendment cases.

Anchors
07-08-2011, 6:48 PM
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf

In case anyone wants to read the denial of MTD.

anthonyca
07-08-2011, 6:59 PM
http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.24.0.pdf

In case anyone wants to read the denial of MTD.

Is anyone else suprized that they spend much of their limited free time reading legal documents and court rulings? :D

What's even more amusing is when one of the people I look up to, and who is a leader in our RKBA fight, answers me on this forum.

This RKBA thing has to be the most grassroots movement around.

Lex Arma
07-08-2011, 7:19 PM
Is anyone else suprized that they spend much of their limited free time reading legal documents and court rulings? :D

What's even more amusing is when one of the people I look up to, and who is a leader in our RKBA fight, answers me on this forum.

This RKBA thing has to be the most grassroots movement around.

RKBA is grassroots because it has to be to survive. The political elites in both parties (mostly) are frightened by the philosophic implications of the Second Amendment.

On the Enos case, the more I reread it, the better I like our chances. This was a good day.

wildhawker
07-08-2011, 7:22 PM
Survival and liberty are powerful incentives...

anthonyca
07-08-2011, 7:40 PM
RKBA is grassroots because it has to be to survive. The political elites in both parties (mostly) are frightened by the philosophic implications of the Second Amendment.

On the Enos case, the more I reread it, the better I like our chances. This was a good day.

One of those people just responded. :D

Great work. Will there be oral arguments we can watch? I wasn't able to make any nordyke hearings in person but I enjoyed watching them on my computer.

Anchors
07-08-2011, 11:01 PM
Is anyone else suprized that they spend much of their limited free time reading legal documents and court rulings? :D

What's even more amusing is when one of the people I look up to, and who is a leader in our RKBA fight, answers me on this forum.

This RKBA thing has to be the most grassroots movement around.

I've learned more about the law, law enforcement, and legal procedures in the last year two years than the other 20 put together.

My friends, family, and coworkers now come to me when they have casual legal questions or need to know something about the law. If I don't know I look it up for them. haha. :cool2:

It is pretty sad actually.

Maestro Pistolero
07-08-2011, 11:09 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. You want to get out of an argument so you ever so slightly move your spouses arm away from the door knob, by legal and jury instruction that is DV.

Most people get into trouble by telling the cops that they moved their spouse's hand to avoid a more heated argument. Now the cops have to arrest and the DA will prosecute even when the spouse doesn't want to press charges. It's an open and shut case and you CAN NOT win unless the jury disobeys the jury instructions and ignores the law.
I've seen it more times than I care to mention. And it's fracking amazing how the presumption of innocence goes right out the window in DV cases.

My brother is a police Lt and confirms this. He has seem more incidents just like this than he can remember. His hands are tied too.

anthonyca
07-09-2011, 11:13 AM
My brother is a police Lt and confirms this. He has seem more incidents just like this than he can remember. His hands are tied too.

I really wanted to be a police officer when I was younger. When I was in the Army reserve,(mid 90s to early 2000s) the lautenberg amendment got some people discharged from the Army. We had some LEOs in the unit and I had some as family and friends. After some of the horror stories I heard about them having to arrest people for such minor things we have all done, there is no way I could do that to someone. I couldn't ruin someone's life and career for what they showed me was a mandatory charge. Many of the cops I talked to hated that they had no input.

anthonyca
07-10-2011, 3:51 PM
I have some questions on the dismissal of the 1st, 5th, and 10th amendment claims. My questions and concerns are in this font.

1st amendment dismissal.

The court wrote:

"2. First Amendment
The FAC alleges that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(9) and 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(33) violate Enos‟ First
Amendment rights, because they impose a lifetime ban on the
exercise of a fundamental constitutional right for a minor crime
without providing a statutory remedy to petition the government for
restoration of that right. However, as Defendants argue, these
allegations fail to state a claim. Defendants contend that the
First Amendment claim is devoid of merit, because it contains no
Case 2:10-cv-02911-JAM -EFB Document 24 Filed 07/08/11 Page 11 of 14
allegations that the government has restricted Plaintiffs right to
speech and to petition the government for redress. Furthermore, gun
possession is not speech. See Nordyke v. King 319 F.3d 1185, 1190
(9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs conceded the weakness of this claim in
the briefs and at oral argument, by admitting that they advanced
the claim only in hopes of making new law. However, Enos has
failed to state a claim for violation of the First Amendment, and
his First Amendment claim is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE."

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Isn't the 1st amendment claim in Enos about there being to way to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Can there only be a redress for grievances regarding religion,speech, press or to assemble? I thought the whole point of the first amendment is to allow the people to speak freely about grievances, what ever they are, and to have an avenue for redress?

anthonyca
07-10-2011, 3:53 PM
5th amendment dismissal:

From Enos"4. Fifth Amendment
The FAC alleges that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(9) and 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(33) violate the Fifth Amendment
by imposing a lifetime ban on the right to own a gun without
providing a statutory remedy for restoration of that right.
Defendants‟ oppose this claim, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)
allows any person to apply for relief from the Attorney General.
See Palma v. United States, 228 F.3d 323, 327-28 (3d Cir. 2000)
(stating that persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence may apply for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)). Enos‟
opposition brief states that he is asserting an equal protection
argument, but does not set forth allegations or argument in support
of this claim or in opposition to Defendants‟ arguments.
Accordingly, the Fifth Amendment claim is DISMISSED, WITH
PREJUDICE."

Here is Palma vs US.http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/323/478745/

"If so, it should then permit Rice to submit additional evidence of his fitness to have his firearms privileges restored and, thereafter, decide whether Rice's application satisfies section 925(c)'s standards for restoration of a convict's firearms privileges.68 F.3d at 710 (emphasis added). We also explicitly noted that a convicted felon seeking relief under S 925(c) "bears a heavy burden" because "possession of a firearm after a disabling conviction is a privilege, not a right." Id. (citing Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980))."


In Palma, the court refires to firearms rights as "privileges" multiple times. Is the only because Palma had pleaded to the felony tax charge, or were all firearms rights considered "privileges" due to this being before Heller and McDonald?

From Palma,
"Some time after his conviction, Palma applied to the ATF for relief from his firearms disability under S 925(c). The ATF informed him that it could not act on his request because Congress' prohibition of the use of appropriated funds made the necessary background check and investigation impossible. Palma then filed a petition for relief from the firearms disability in the district court. In that petition, he conceded that Congress has prohibited the ATF from acting on petitions for relief. Petition for Relief at P 12. Nonetheless, he asked the district court to conduct its own inquiry into his fitness to own a firearm and to issue an order restoring his firearms privileges. Id. at PP 22-26."
"The government responded to Palma's petition by filing a motion to dismiss in which it asserted that the district court has "no authority to consider in the first instance the merits of a convicted felon's application for relief from his federal firearms disabilities." Government's Br. at 7.
11 The district court denied the government's motion to dismiss. The court issued an order setting a hearing on Palma's motion, and directing parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court also ordered that those proposals "should address the issue, assuming arguendo plaintiff meets his `heavy burden' on the merits, [of whether] the denial of appropriated funds to administer the law is a miscarriage of justice." App. at 31. Thereafter, pursuant to our decision in Rice v. United States, the district court asserted jurisdiction over Palma's petition and held an evidentiary hearing at which Palma and a number of character witnesses testified. At the conclusion of that hearing, the district court entered an order restoring Palma's firearms privileges. Palma v. United States, 48 F. Supp.2d 481 (E. D. Pa. 1999). This appeal followed."

"In Rice v. United States, 68 F.3d 702 (3d Cir. 1995), we held that, despite the congressional prohibition against spending government funds to process S 925(c) applications for relief, a district court retains subject matter jurisdiction to consider a convicted felon's petition for relief from the federal firearms disability in the first instance. We concluded that the annual congressional bans on the expenditure of funds to process S 925(c) applications "do not evidence an intent to repeal or limit the district court's jurisdiction to review BATF's . . . inaction on [a convicted felon's] section 925(c) application. . . ." Id. at 710. We also concluded that the "[]ATF 's continuing inability to process [a convicted felon's] section 925(c) application constitutes an undue delay excusing [the convicted felon] from exhausting his administrative remedies that allows him to seek judicial review." Id.
18 As a consequence of our decision in Rice, a district court entertaining a S 925(c) application for relief must "determine in the exercise of its sound discretion whether the facts [the convicted felon] alleges indicate a potential for a miscarriage of justice." Id. If so, a district court may permit the petitioner to "submit additional evidence of his fitness to have his firearms privileges restored, and, thereafter, [the court will] decide whether [the]. . . application satisfies section 925(c)'s standards for restoration of a convict's firearms privileges." Id., In Rice, we remanded with instructions to permit testimony only if the facts alleged by the petitioner indicated that a potential for a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. We stated:
19 we will remand this case to the district court to determine in the exercise of its sound discretion whether the facts Rice alleges indicate a potential for a miscarriage of justice. If so, it should then permit Rice to submit additional evidence of his fitness to have his firearms privileges restored and, thereafter, decide whether Rice's application satisfies section 925(c)'s standards for restoration of a convict's firearms privileges.68 F.3d at 710 (emphasis added). We also explicitly noted that a convicted felon seeking relief under S 925(c) "bears a heavy burden" because "possession of a firearm after a disabling conviction is a privilege, not a right." Id. (citing Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)).
20 The government contends that Rice's holding that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over applications for relief from firearms disabilities despite Congress' ban on appropriations for S 925(c) investigations is "fundamentally flawed." Government's Br. at 18. As the government is quick to point out, Rice has been rejected by four other Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue. See McHugh v. Rubin, 220 F.3d 53, (2d Cir. July 11, 2000); Owen v. Magaw, 122 F.3d 1350 (10th Cir. 1997); Burtch v. Department of the Treasury, 120 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. McGill, 74 F.3d 64 (5th Cir. 1996). Cf. Saccacio v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 211 F.3d 102 (4th Cir. 2000)(Not taking direct issue with our analysis in Rice because of its holding that the Secretary's denial of an application for relief is a jurisdictional requirement that is not satisfied simply because of the agency's failure to process the application). However, despite its disagreement with Rice, the government realizes that Rice is binding on us1 and that the district court was bound by that decision. Therefore, as the government also concedes, the district court did not err under Rice in exercising jurisdiction over Palma's S 925 (c) application. Nonetheless, the government judiciously submits that "en banc reconsideration of Rice may be warranted at a suitable juncture, in this Court's discretion." Government's Br. at 18.
21 However, we need not now respond to the government's concerns about our analysis in Rice because, inasmuch as we conclude that Palma failed to establish the requisite "miscarriage of justice," he is not entitled to have the firearms disability removed in any event.
22 The district court held that "the government's failure to provide funds to investigate and process applications for relief as provided in the statute constitutes a miscarriage of justice, where, . . . [Palma] meets the statutory requirements for such relief and there is no way for him to obtain the relief authorized by the statute." 48 F. Supp.2d at 486. In so holding, the district court misapplied S 925(c), and misinterpreted our holding in Rice. Clearly, under the unambiguous language of the statute, it is not the absence of administrative relief that constitutes a "miscarriage of justice." Rather, the convicted felon must allege facts in his or her application for relief which "indicate a potential for a miscarriage of justice," if the petition is denied. Therefore, a showing of a "potential for a miscarriage of justice" is the threshold showing which a convicted felon must make under Rice in order for the district court to permit the applicant to submit evidence of his or her fitness to have firearms privileges restored.2 Then, and only then, can the district court receive such evidence and consider it in determining whether the applicant satisfies the other requirements of S 925(c) -- i.e., whether the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
23 A contrary reading of S 925(c) yields absurd results. It would sanction removal of the disability based upon something tantamount to an ex parte proceeding that is controlled by the convicted felon because the district court would have to receive whatever admissible evidence the petitioner offered and render a decision based solely upon that one-sided record whenever a petition for relief is filed. For example, one who seeks to obtain assault weapons in order to launch an attack upon members of a religious or ethnic minority group or a bothersome neighbor could always establish a "miscarriage of justice" based upon the prohibition of using appropriations to investigate his/her fitness to own or possess firearms. Such a petition would thereby open the courthouse door for a hearing, in which the judge would hear positive things the petitioner chose. Accordingly, the judge may never learn the kind of information that an investigation could ferret out (i.e., the "bothersome" neighbor who may have a justifiable concern over lifting the petitioner's disability).3"


Is the court stating that there IS a statutory remedy, because the court will evaluate Enos if the ATF can not, due congress not allowing them to spend money on this?If the answer to the above question is yes, how does this from Palma come into play?

"Thus, the foundation for his attempt to gain relief from the firearms disability rests upon little more than the fact that he would feel safer, and be more comfortable in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties, if he carried a gun during his appraisals. This hardly satisfies the burden he must meet before the district court can receive evidence in support of his petition."

Does it matter why he wants the right? It's a fundamental right.

anthonyca
07-10-2011, 3:53 PM
10th Amendment Dismissal:
From Enos

"3. Tenth Amendment
The FAC alleges that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(9) and 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(33) violate the Tenth
Amendment, by usurping the States‟ powers to define and provide for
the rehabilitation of minor public offenses. 1 Defendants move to
dismiss the Tenth Amendment claim, arguing that the Ninth Circuit
in United States v. Andaverde, 64 F.3d 1305 (9th Cir. 1995) held
that Congress may regulate possession of firearms without violating
the Tenth Amendment. Though Andaverde discussed 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (regulating the possession of firearms by felons),
courts addressing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) have likewise found the
statute to be constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. See, e.g.,
Fraternal Order of Police v. United States, 173 F. 3d 898 (D.C.
Cir. 1999); Hiley v. Barret, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, Enos‟ claim for violation of the Tenth Amendment is
1 The Court has considered Bond v. United States, 2011 WL 2369334
(2011), the supplemental authority recently submitted by counsel
for Plaintiffs (Doc. #23), and finds it unpersuasive. Bond is
unrelated to the issue of firearms regulation under the Tenth
Amendment, and to the extent that Plaintiffs‟ cite it in support of
their argument for standing, it is entirely distinguishable from
the case at hand, because the plaintiff in Bond was convicted and
incarcerated under the law she challenged on Tenth Amendment
grounds.Case 2:10-cv-02911-JAM -EFB Document 24 Filed 07/08/11 Page 12 of 14
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE."


I do not fully understand the Bond reference by the court with regard to Bond incarcerated. Is that a Habeas corpus reference?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1305091.html
United States v. Andaverde
"On January 31, 1991, Andaverde was convicted in state court of first degree burglary and was subsequently imprisoned.   At the time of the events at issue here, he had been released and was on probation."
"Andaverde is incorrect.   In determining whether a felon continues to suffer a civil rights disability, the Ninth Circuit considers whether the felon has been restored the right to vote, sit on a jury, and hold public office.  United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575, 578 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 919, 114 S.Ct. 314, 126 L.Ed.2d 261 (1993);  United States v. Dahms, 938 F.2d 131, 133 (9th Cir.1991).   Andaverde contends that this restoration analysis should turn on whether state law restores the right to bear arms.   Even if, in determining whether a felon's civil rights have been restored, the court should look to state law giving felons the right to bear arms, the restoration of this single right does not prevent prosecution under § 922(g)(1).   A restoration of rights must be “substantial,” not merely de minimis.  Meeks, 987 F.2d at 578;  Dahms, 938 F.2d at 133.   We held in Meeks that, under Missouri law which allowed convicted felons to vote and hold office, but which did not restore the right to serve on a jury, to hold office as a sheriff, or to be a highway patrol officer, the defendant had not had his civil rights “substantially restored” and thus could be prosecuted under § 922(g)(1).  Meeks, 987 F.2d at 578.   In contrast, the Dahms court ruled that a defendant who had been restored the right to vote, hold public office, and serve on a jury had had his rights substantially restored within the meaning of § 921(a)(20).  Dahms, 938 F.2d at 134."


Is being able to be a highway patrol officer a fundamental civil right? Do Heller and McDonald make a difference here?


"Under Washington state law, a felon's civil rights are restored in full when he completes the requirements of his sentence and is thereby discharged.   Wash.Rev.Code § 9.94A.220.   However, until a felon is discharged, state law prevents him from serving on a jury, holding public office, and voting.   Wash.Rev.Code §§ 2.36.070(5) (Supp.1995), 29.65.010(3);  Wash. Const. Art. 6, § 3.   There is no evidence in the record that Andaverde has been discharged.   Andaverde thus substantially lacked civil rights when he was prosecuted under § 922(g)(1).   Cf. Dahms, 938 F.2d at 134.   Therefore, the district court did not err in ruling that he could be prosecuted under that statute.
A.
 Andaverde further contends that his conviction under § 922(g)(1) violates the equal protection assurances contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because § 922(g)(1) differentiates between convicted felons who are on probation and those who are not.
This argument is unpersuasive.   Congress could rationally conclude that convicted felons who have successfully completed their probation, and, presumptively, have been reintegrated into society may better be trusted with the right to possess firearms than convicted felons who have yet to prove themselves rehabilitated.   Andaverde's equal protection claim must fail."


Does this change after Heller and McDonald? What about Enos having been "discharged"?


The court referenced Fraternal Order of Police v. United States,http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1115866.html
From FOP v US
"We note, finally, that the treatment of domestic violence misdemeanants intersects with certain anomalies in Congress's provision for deferring to state law on restoration of civil rights.   For the purposes of the firearm disability generally, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) provides that convictions for which civil rights have been restored do not trigger the disability.   See United States v. Bost, 87 F.3d 1333, 1335 (D.C.Cir.1996) (discussing state restoration of rights).   An equivalent provision, § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), allows state restoration of civil rights to lift the federal disability from domestic violence misdemeanants.   But few states (if any) deprive such misdemeanants of civil rights.   With no deprivation, there can be no “restoration” in the ordinary sense of the term.   See McGrath, 60 F.3d at 1007-10 (holding that felon whose civil rights were not revoked could not argue that they had been restored).   Thus the plain text of the statute seems to put misdemeanants who have never lost their rights in a worse situation than felons whose rights are restored, often by automatic operation of state law.   See, e.g., United States v. Caron, 77 F.3d 1, 2-4 (1st Cir.1996) (holding that individualized restoration of civil rights is not required to lift firearm disability)."


All of this was before the 2nd was ruled by SCOTUS as a right. Isn't revocation of the second now a loss of rights?


"From the same case Because we find §§ 922(g)(9) and (d)(9) in violation of equal protection requirements independently, we need not address the interpretive and other issues posed by the “restoration” provisions.
*   *   *
 This brings us to the question of remedy.   The Order makes various alternative requests, one of which is that we hold § 925 inoperative.   Section 928 of the Gun Control Act explicitly provides that the invalidation of one provision shall not affect the remainder of the Act.   We think the most appropriate remedy is consequently to hold that § 925 is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to withhold the public interest exception from those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.   The government may not bar such people from possessing firearms in the public interest while it imposes a lesser restriction on those convicted of crimes that differ only in being more serious.   Of course we do not decide whether a broader revocation of the public interest exception-for example, from all those convicted of any crime of domestic violence-would be constitutional.
So ordered."


I am lost here, can someone explain this?

I can't seem to find Hiley v. Barret, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 1998)
Searches led me to this.http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1999/0responses/99-0106.resp.pdf
The court of appeals rejected petitioner’s Tenth
Amendment claim. Pet. App. 15-17. The court explained
that “[petitioner’s] Tenth Amendment challenge
fails because § 922(g)(9) does not force state
officials to do anything affirmative to implement its bar
on domestic violence misdemeanants’ possession of
firearms.” Id. at 15. The court also observed:"

Is this all that is required for a dismissal of a 10th amendment claim?

The 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Under the 10th amendment the federal government can not force a state to make or enforce a law, but they can just make a federal law that a state does not want?

anthonyca
07-15-2011, 7:35 PM
Does anyone have any input on my 3 posts above?

hoffmang
07-15-2011, 9:10 PM
The judge is wrong on the 10th amendment dismissal but it's not worth fighting about that here. On appeal (should that be necessary) then the error of his reading of SCOTUS precedent would be pointed out.

-Gene

anthonyca
07-15-2011, 10:55 PM
The judge is wrong on the 10th amendment dismissal but it's not worth fighting about that here. On appeal (should that be necessary) then the error of his reading of SCOTUS precedent would be pointed out.

-Gene

Thanks Gene.

Is there a way to have one plaintiff break off and appeal the 10th amendment claim? It just seems with the changes in attitudes about the 10th amendment, many groups and individuals would support that financially.

This case has generated a lot of interest so far and that is good to see.

You can probably guess my next question. Do we have to wait two weeks?:D

hoffmang
07-15-2011, 11:48 PM
Is there a way to have one plaintiff break off and appeal the 10th amendment claim?

No.

Should the plaintiffs prevail, the 10A claim is likely to never resurface in this case as courts don't go beyond a minimum necessary to end a dispute.

-Gene

Lex Arma
07-16-2011, 7:30 AM
No.

Should the plaintiffs prevail, the 10A claim is likely to never resurface in this case as courts don't go beyond a minimum necessary to end a dispute.

-Gene

Gene is correct about the plaintiffs that will stay in the suit, but remember the judge dismissed one plaintiff the day of the hearing. He was the guy convicted of a 415 (disturbing the peace). He actually has the best 10th Amendment claim. 415 is not even a DQ misdemeanor under CA law. So this guy really is in the Alice-Wonder-Land situation of no rights lost, so none to restore. And having not been convicted of a felony, he has NO remedy for ever restoring his 2A rights. CA offers no remedy. Feds say look to state remedy for misdemeanors and federal remedies for felonies as part of a program that Congress refuses to fund. Would you like your Kafka with cream, sugar or LSD?

The judge did not dismiss on 10th Amendment grounds, he did so on venue and because the case was too dissimilar. So I can't appeal the 10th Amendment ruling for this client. I think the judge wrong on the venue ruling, but I don't want to waste time on that issue.

Looking at new options for this client. Anybody got any ideas? :rolleyes:

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 7:48 AM
Gene is correct about the plaintiffs that will stay in the suit, but remember the judge dismissed one plaintiff the day of the hearing. He was the guy convicted of a 415 (disturbing the peace). He actually has the best 10th Amendment claim. 415 is not even a DQ misdemeanor under CA law. So this guy really is in the Alice-Wonder-Land situation of no rights lost, so none to restore. And having not been convicted of a felony, he has NO remedy for ever restoring his 2A rights. CA offers no remedy. Feds say look to state remedy for misdemeanors and federal remedies for felonies as part of a program that Congress refuses to fund. Would you like your Kafka with cream, sugar or LSD?

The judge did not dismiss on 10th Amendment grounds, he did so on venue and because the case was too dissimilar. So I can't appeal the 10th Amendment ruling for this client. I think the judge wrong on the venue ruling, but I don't want to waste time on that issue.

Looking at new options for this client. Anybody got any ideas? :rolleyes:

I started this thread for a few reasons. Two reasons are many people feel the DV laws are wrong and loosing a fundamental right for such a minor crime is appalling.

This thread received over 13,000 views before it even got to the MTD. The interest level is high and people are interested, on both sides. Some of the feedback from people pretty prominent in the RKBA community thanking me for publicizing this case has been suprizing, and this case is still so new.

I firmly believe if that 415 dismissal is properly "marketed" there will be a large amount of donations nation wide for the fight. I know this is not cheap and you spend many long hours on these cases. I have heard that you spent much of your own time on nordyke. I am not sure if that is true, but I'm just here to let you know that people will donate to this cause if they know about it. :D

SunTzu
07-16-2011, 10:32 AM
You get that check Lex! I will email you monday on the 415 guy. I have ideas!

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 10:52 AM
You get that check Lex! I will email you monday on the 415 guy. I have ideas!

Everyone knows someone who has had a DV or restraining order, even if they never told you. I have a job with VERY strict security clearance and credit checks. Some accounts make us list all bills and income. People would be shocked to know how many people have these problems.

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 3:36 PM
I was convicted 15 years ago when my ex-wife at the time, came over to re assure herself that she was going to retain custody of our 2 children. She started a arguement where neighbors could here, picked up the phone in front of me, called 911 and told them that I pushed her. I felt hurt and got in my car to leave my own home and was stopped and arrested by police. She claimed that I pushed her and I went to jail...period! This is the punishment I get for loving and wanting my children in my life. Kids are grown now and on their own now, been remarried for 14 years without any more run ins with the law, but makes no difference,still banned for life. I was robbed at gun point 4 months ago and was almost killed, unable to defend myself... Thank god I didn't have any loved ones with me!!

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 3:50 PM
I guess we're supossed to go along with fed's law interpetation, where only the cops and robbers have guns...pretty pathetic!!

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 4:04 PM
Also... I want to thank everyone that's involved in and around this lawsuit! Thank you very much!! I've been struggling with this lifetime prohibition for years... I'm a avid hunter and shooter and this is the way of life I enjoy so much. At least I know there is few (probably millions) in the same boat and know there may finally be a remedy to this situation. Thanks to all involved!

Anchors
07-16-2011, 4:06 PM
Gene is correct about the plaintiffs that will stay in the suit, but remember the judge dismissed one plaintiff the day of the hearing. He was the guy convicted of a 415 (disturbing the peace). He actually has the best 10th Amendment claim. 415 is not even a DQ misdemeanor under CA law. So this guy really is in the Alice-Wonder-Land situation of no rights lost, so none to restore. And having not been convicted of a felony, he has NO remedy for ever restoring his 2A rights. CA offers no remedy. Feds say look to state remedy for misdemeanors and federal remedies for felonies as part of a program that Congress refuses to fund. Would you like your Kafka with cream, sugar or LSD?

The judge did not dismiss on 10th Amendment grounds, he did so on venue and because the case was too dissimilar. So I can't appeal the 10th Amendment ruling for this client. I think the judge wrong on the venue ruling, but I don't want to waste time on that issue.

Looking at new options for this client. Anybody got any ideas? :rolleyes:

Is he allowed to refile a separate case apart from the main case since he was only dismissed on venue and there was no judgement made in regard to his claim?

I was convicted 15 years ago when my ex-wife at the time, came over to re assure herself that she was going to retain custody of our 2 children. She started a arguement where neighbors could here, picked up the phone in front of me, called 911 and told them that I pushed her. I felt hurt and got in my car to leave my own home and was stopped and arrested by police. She claimed that I pushed her and I went to jail...period! This is the punishment I get for loving and wanting my children in my life. Kids are grown now and on their own now, been remarried for 14 years without any more run ins with the law, but makes no difference,still banned for life. I was robbed at gun point 4 months ago and was almost killed, unable to defend myself... Thank god I didn't have any loved ones with me!!

That is so terrible man.
I really hope these things will change.
Some of the other prohibited categories are going to be harder to attack, but I seriously think any reasonable person can see that lifetime ban for a misdemeanor DV is just wrong (especially with how easy it is to get a DV these days. I know why it is like that, because people in abusive relationships won't tell on their spouses a lot of the time, but still. We can't sacrifice everyone's rights. I bet like 15% of the guys with DV convictions were actually beating their wives.)

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 4:27 PM
Alot of women use it as a weapon these days to get back at their partners for one reason or another. I personally know of two women that hitted themseves in order to get back at their boyfriends. When they talk about it, they just laugh and brag about it. This goes on alot, i'm sure. They are'nt always innocent and frail, like the fed's act like they are so they can take a backdoor step to disarming America. Now womeb are getting arrested for it as well... Our government really cares about the poor,little 'ol women that they take them to jail also? I think they care more about disarming us than protecting us.

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 4:52 PM
I'm sure there has been federal officials and Batfe officers that have also been disarmed.. The same people taking the general to jail for mcdv are also going to jail themselves. There was 2 leos and a juvenile probation officer in class with me, how absurd! I guess the fed's and cops will keep arresting until there is no one left to take us too jail. I called Nics one time, to discuss a dros denial that I recieved and talked with a batfe agent and what I took from the conversation was that the agents dont like this law either and they still fight the lawsuits and come up with their own interpertation of the law...what a joke!

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 10:16 PM
I'm sure there has been federal officials and Batfe officers that have also been disarmed.. The same people taking the general to jail for mcdv are also going to jail themselves. There was 2 leos and a juvenile probation officer in class with me, how absurd! I guess the fed's and cops will keep arresting until there is no one left to take us too jail. I called Nics one time, to discuss a dros denial that I recieved and talked with a batfe agent and what I took from the conversation was that the agents dont like this law either and they still fight the lawsuits and come up with their own interpertation of the law...what a joke!

Many of the early challenges to this law were in fact brought by officers and their unions.

This needs to be fixed.

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 10:21 PM
There were recent senate hearing about the false accusations in these DV cases.

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=11

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/senate-panel-is-urged-to-renew-domestic-violence-l/

anthonyca
07-16-2011, 10:35 PM
Donating money here http://madison-society.org/donation.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

nicki
07-16-2011, 11:19 PM
Many police officers get divorces and the Lautenberg bill puts them at a significant disadvantage in "divorce proceedings".

This is a very sore point with Law Enforcement Officers because many have gotten "screwed" in divorce proceedings because their soon to be ex spouses threaten the DV card.

Just curious, what is the source of jurisdiction for the Federal Law. I don't see how a "domestic violence" charge relates to interstate commerce.

Nicki

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 11:40 PM
All I see is abunch of scared judges too scared to prove Congress wrong. The law violates so many rights...it's pretty scary that were not as free and guaranteed rights as once believed! What a mess!! I can't own a gun but I can sure pay the taxes that take my rights away...land of the free

hoghunter7mm
07-16-2011, 11:54 PM
I'm starting to think that it's much easier to be a criminal than a law abiding citizen. In the eyes of these jokers running our country, i'm still a criminal and will always be one. And to the Leos that took me to jail that nite (without asking me what happened) you can kiss my arse! Even though atleast probably 2 out of 4 probably already have lost there guns... Hypocrit scum!! Sorry to the rest of us...i've had many years of built of resentment over this

anthonyca
07-17-2011, 12:24 AM
I'm starting to think that it's much easier to be a criminal than a law abiding citizen. In the eyes of these jokers running our country, i'm still a criminal and will always be one. And to the Leos that took me to jail that nite (without asking me what happened) you can kiss my arse! Even though atleast probably 2 out of 4 probably already have lost there guns... Hypocrit scum!! Sorry to the rest of us...i've had many years of built of resentment over this

You are not alone. This is more common than people know, both for men and women. Now with mandatory arrest laws, women are arrested MUCH more often than they were in the past.

anthonyca
07-17-2011, 12:32 AM
Many police officers get divorces and the Lautenberg bill puts them at a significant disadvantage in "divorce proceedings".

This is a very sore point with Law Enforcement Officers because many have gotten "screwed" in divorce proceedings because their soon to be ex spouses threaten the DV card.

Just curious, what is the source of jurisdiction for the Federal Law. I don't see how a "domestic violence" charge relates to interstate commerce.

Nicki

Haven't you heard? Everything is interstate commerce, even if it's actually intrastate commerce, as intrastate commerce means you affected interstate commerce by not engaging in interstate commerce, even if there is no kind of commerce involved.

Crazy how we let that happen.

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 6:09 AM
The sadest part is how alot of people me can defend themselves,family and home wheras I cannot protect my family. And if I do, I become a felon. Not to mention that my wife can't legally protect herself around me either. I guess our elected officals don't need a gun to protect themsevles....they got our money to pay for their bodyguards

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 6:13 AM
Sounds more and more how the laws are in England...go to jail if you protect yourself. Just a different approach.

SanPedroShooter
07-17-2011, 6:57 AM
Would you like your Kafka with cream, sugar or LSD?

:willy_nilly:

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 7:15 AM
Atleast I don't have to worry about being drafted into the Army anytime soon

BigBamBoo
07-17-2011, 8:59 AM
I was looking for any new news about this: http://www.ktvu.com/news/27549809/detail.html

it can happen to anyone.

shocknm
07-17-2011, 9:14 AM
If there were a draft, the mcdv prohibition would be one of the first things 'they' would make an exception for.

Anyone have stats on how many lautenberg prohibited males in the states there are?

anthonyca
07-17-2011, 9:20 AM
If there were a draft, the mcdv prohibition would be one of the first things 'they' would make an exception for.

Anyone have stats on how many lautenberg prohibited males in the states there are?

That is info I would like to see. I did see some interesting stats on the violence against women act and female DV arrest numbers, they have skyrocketed!

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 9:36 AM
I googeled women arrested for dv and read that 25% of arrests are now woman. But are often not prosecuted as swiftly as men, but I think that view of poor woman is changing. It used to be if a woman slapped,hit or scratched a man was considered ok but when a man had enough of the abuse and stood up for himself...he is a criminal. Two out of the last three relationships my girlfriends were the violent ones and I prayed that I wouldn't end up in jail again. When I say violent I mean what the feds consider dv but my ex girlfriends considered playful. The antis just used these and threw em away after getting this law passed

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 9:51 AM
It amazes me how many people have been affected and only some care about their rights being lost. I think as more and more people fear for their safety and wanna carry for protection, and find out they can't, then maybe we will have a bigger voice. I'm also surprised that 2 laws were entered this year and neither politican has any co sponsors, where they had in the past. Many may feel it's a lost cause but obivously alot of the public do not along with many states that have tried to rectify this problem. Atleast now I feel that we are making some strides and questioning this unfair law

anthonyca
07-17-2011, 9:56 AM
I was looking for any new news about this: http://www.ktvu.com/news/27549809/detail.html

it can happen to anyone.

What happened in that case? Was he charged? I can't find an update.

The judge was arrested for felony DV. I have no idea what happened and he is innocent until proven guilty. The cases this thread is about could never be a felony since misdemeanor DV can be for "the least touching", and some prohibiting DV arena charges don't involve touching at all.

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 10:53 AM
When I was first convicted years ago, I remember reading in a NRA magazine, when this law was fresh and new, and they said that they really didn't care about helping people, it was about grabbing guns without due process and NRA was right. But I guess the NRA doesn't view me as a law abiding citizen anymore or it's leavung up to me and my state to sort it out, while the feds still say no

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 10:57 AM
Donating to the nra and voting for pro gun politicans hasn't a difference either. Hopefully with enough combined effort something will change

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 11:38 AM
Wouldn't it make a bit more sense for all who have tried to test the waters on this law, to combine into one big voice and a huge lawsuit, then smaller enties attacking it at different times? It's does appear that Donald has some standing on this issue for now and he has taken California gun owners and CADOJ understanding of firearm ownership to new heigjts. I feel that firearm owners are on a roll and taking back some turf! But we all know that this law is the most important one of all for the antis and will fight to keep it alive. CADOJ says law needs to change and NICS says it will never happen.

BigBamBoo
07-17-2011, 12:02 PM
What happened in that case? Was he charged? I can't find an update.

The judge was arrested for felony DV. I have no idea what happened and he is innocent until proven guilty. The cases this thread is about could never be a felony since misdemeanor DV can be for "the least touching", and some prohibiting DV arena charges don't involve touching at all.


For some strange reason :rolleyes: ....there is not much follow up on this case. Hmmm

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 12:03 PM
Or are we just chipping away?? Thanks to all that has giving me some hope and insight on this issue! I'm headed over to the Madison society and donate. Thanks Donald... You da man!!

anthonyca
07-17-2011, 12:25 PM
When I was first convicted years ago, I remember reading in a NRA magazine, when this law was fresh and new, and they said that they really didn't care about helping people, it was about grabbing guns without due process and NRA was right. But I guess the NRA doesn't view me as a law abiding citizen anymore or it's leavung up to me and my state to sort it out, while the feds still say no

Congress will not fix this issue. The NRA doesn't want to be seen as helping "wife beaters" ( we all know that is not what many of the people who have been lautenberged are) your only hope is the courts, and this is the best case I have seen so far.

Skoien and the other big one that went to circuit courts, were brought by terrible plaintiffs, who were still on probation when arrested, had multiple past convictions for minor battery, and were represented by a criminal defense lawyer.

This case is headed by Donald Kilmer, the first man in the history of the USA to get a federal court to rule that the second amendment was a RIGHT, ( before it went en banc when the other justices read it and said , holy $&(/!) in the 9th circuit of all fn courts!

This is the case.

hoghunter7mm
07-17-2011, 12:47 PM
Thank you... Well said

VW*Mike
07-17-2011, 1:17 PM
This being one issue, and a good one to fight. A lot of B.S. stuff can be made to look a lot worse then it is. Perspective is everything. Your situation saddens me. Unfortunately it happens all too often and I wish you the best of luck. Some charges do carry "cruel" punishments, while not breaking rocks, it can effect people their entire lives.

This and some other changes I think need to be made for people who commit crimes in general. I think the attitude needs to be changed from "once a criminal, always a criminal". My personal theory is on this, is after they have served their time, paid their debt, they are released back in to a society they are no longer able to fit into. Marking on rental applications they have been convicted of a crime. When they go look for a job, they are denied a decent job. They can be harassed at a traffic stop for having a blinker out, pulled out of the car and searched. Can't vote, can't own firearms, etc. I think this in itself pushes them back the other way. People make mistakes, period. We all do. We have all been young and dumb.

I personally think, after their debt has been paid, after their probation and parole is up, they be allowed to be free and clear of such obstacles. Obviously, career criminals are just that, and wouldn't fall in this category, but stuff like juvenile crime, minor offenses, stuff like that is no reason to write someone off forever.

dad
07-17-2011, 1:25 PM
When I was first convicted years ago, I remember reading in a NRA magazine, when this law was fresh and new, and they said that they really didn't care about helping people, it was about grabbing guns without due process and NRA was right. But I guess the NRA doesn't view me as a law abiding citizen anymore or it's leavung up to me and my state to sort it out, while the feds still say no

Did the court(s) tell you of the 10 year gun ban? Did the court(s), or any one official, tell you of Lautenberg and life time gun ban?

Westerner
07-17-2011, 1:27 PM
Congress will not fix this issue. The NRA doesn't want to be seen as helping "wife beaters" ( we all know that is not what many of the people who have been lautenberged are) your only hope is the courts, and this is the best case I have seen so far.

Skoien and the other big one that went to circuit courts, were brought by terrible plaintiffs, who were still on probation when arrested, had multiple past convictions for minor battery, and were represented by a criminal defense lawyer.

This case is headed by Donald Kilmer, the first man in the history of the USA to get a federal court to rule that the second amendment was a RIGHT, ( before it went en banc when the other justices read it and said , holy $&(/!) in the 9th circuit of all fn courts!

This is the case.

I'm also really shocked that the NRA isn't backing, or mentioning the Schrader vs Holder case. A case which is only a misdemeanor charge . A guy losing his RKBA for trying to defend himself from thugs trying to jump him. Not to mention the incident happening in the 60's:confused: