Lifetime Ban for Misdemeanor Domestic "Violence" (Enos v Holder)

[anthonyca]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&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/...-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/it...15824.23.0.pdf

Update; Enos survived the motion to dismiss by the federal government.http://ia600300.us.archive.org/attac...15824.24.0.pdf

We are winning!
Update 10-3-11

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...2&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....15824.49.0.pdf

Update 2-29-12 Motion to dismiss granted with prejudice
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...5&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/a...4&d=1330544513

Update. 7-12-12 Don Kilmer filing in the 9th circuit court.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1342160469

Update 9-7-12 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...5&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/a...8&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=...3&e=46ea51d106

Update 7-2-14
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...0&d=1405308029

Update 4-7-15
Petition for writ of certiorari filed for SCOTUS Response due 5-11-15
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1428944211

Update 5-26-15
Government again arguing that gun rights are not civil rights.
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...-1216_enos.pdf

[MP301]

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.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by MP301

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.

[awall919]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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

They are a great organization. I believe they are based out here in Modesto. Could be wrong though about location.

[Kid Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by awall919

They are a great organization. I believe they are based out here in Modesto. Could be wrong though about location.

They were instrumental in getting Sheriff Christianson to change his LTC policy. Dem bes good folk.

[nick]

Originally Posted by MP301

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.

[Dreaded Claymore]

Originally Posted by nick

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.

[Smokeybehr]

Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore

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]

Originally Posted by Smokeybehr

"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)

[stix213]

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]

Originally Posted by stix213

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.

[J.D.Allen]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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.

[donw]

Originally Posted by J.D.Allen

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"...

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by donw

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"...

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.

[Maestro Pistolero]

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.

Originally Posted by J.D.Allen

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]

Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero

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.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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.

[woodstock]

My DV case was pre 1996. All I did was take my girlfriend by the arm and take her to her car so she would leave me alone and go to her house. She then threatened to trash my car when she left me so I then grabbed her keys until she calmed down. Little did I know that I would be charged with Felony false imprisonment and a DV. The false imprisonment was thrown out but the DV I ended up with a misdemeanor. After I finished my offeneder work program the Sheriffs called me in to pick up all my guns and rifles that they confiscated from my house. I didnt know I couldnt own a gun intil I went to buy a new one at a store. If I would of known that I was going to eventually lose my gun rights I would of pled not guilty and went to trial. At that time I'm sure the DA would of thrown the case out. So I am in agreement with this battle to restore our 2nd amendment.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by woodstock

My DV case was pre 1996. All I did was take my girlfriend by the arm and take her to her car so she would leave me alone and go to her house. She then threatened to trash my car when she left me so I then grabbed her keys until she calmed down. Little did I know that I would be charged with Felony false imprisonment and a DV. The false imprisonment was thrown out but the DV I ended up with a misdemeanor. After I finished my offeneder work program the Sheriffs called me in to pick up all my guns and rifles that they confiscated from my house. I didnt know I couldnt own a gun intil I went to buy a new one at a store. If I would of known that I was going to eventually lose my gun rights I would of pled not guilty and went to trial. At that time I'm sure the DA would of thrown the case out. So I am in agreement with this battle to restore our 2nd amendment.

You are not alone. Welcome to calguns.

[bonusweb]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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.

Or that someone claims you did something. Don't think, that you need bruise, or that they could not self inflict one.

[mobileglass]

Its basically evolved into a strict liability offense for purposes of firearm restriction

[krucam]

Finally....Oral Arguments at CA9 in Enos v Holder are coming up.

09/25/2014 31 Revised - Notice of Oral Argument on Thursday, October 9, 2014 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 4, 2nd Floor - James R Browning US Courthouse, 95 7th Street, San Francisco, CA. **Note: Change of courtroom**

View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.

When you have reviewed the calendar, download the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form, complete the form, and file it via Appellate ECF or return the completed form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office.
[9254482] (GV)

09/26/2014 32 Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Donald Kilmer, Jr. for Appellants Richard Enos, Jeff Bastasini, Louie Mercado, Walter Groves, Manuel Monteiro, Edward Erikson and Vernon Newman. [9254984] (DK)

09/27/2014 33 Filed (ECF) Appellants Jeff Bastasini, Richard Enos, Edward Erikson, Walter Groves, Louie Mercado, Manuel Monteiro and Vernon Newman citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 09/27/2014. [9256537] (DK)

09/27/2014 34 Filed (ECF) Appellants Jeff Bastasini, Richard Enos, Edward Erikson, Walter Groves, Louie Mercado, Manuel Monteiro and Vernon Newman citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 09/27/2014. [9256552] (DK)

09/29/2014 35 Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice. Location: San Francisco. Filed by Attorney Mr. Michael Raab for Appellee Eric H. Holder, Jr.. [9258535] (MR)

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by stix213

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.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Absolutely.

Interesting article on felony: "Unintended Collateral Consequences: Defining Felony in the Early American Republic " downloadable here.

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

[wildhawker]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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]

Originally Posted by stix213

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 !

[N6ATF]

Originally Posted by stix213

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.

[Aleksandr Mravinsky]

Originally Posted by stix213

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]

Originally Posted by Aleksandr Mravinsky

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

Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech

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.

[stix213]

Originally Posted by Aleksandr Mravinsky

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.

[JeepFreak]

Originally Posted by stix213

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

[odysseus]

Originally Posted by stix213

IMO if the crime was bad enough to take away gun rights for life, the state needs to call it a felony. If it wasn't bad enough to be a felony then it wasn't bad enough to take away a fundamental right.

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

[Al Norris]

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. 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 is funding this lawsuit.

The original complaint is available on the docket. First amended complaint is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...215824.8.0.pdf

Defendants MTD (points and authorities) is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.11.1.pdf

[anthonyca]

Great post. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Al Norris

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. 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 is funding this lawsuit.

The original complaint is available on the docket. First amended complaint is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...215824.8.0.pdf

Defendants MTD (points and authorities) is here: http://ia700300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.11.1.pdf

[mofugly13]

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]

Originally Posted by mofugly13

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]

Originally Posted by mofugly13

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.

[J.D.Allen]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

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...

[gunsmith]

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.

[jl123]

Originally Posted by gunsmith

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?