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

[deprived of 2A]

IF they felt I was so violent you woud think they would have kept it a felony? I find this to be crazy. I could see if it was an active law back then and I agreed to it. I would have to grin and bear it. This issue has never even surfaced until now, trying to buy youth rifles for my boys so they could hunt and target shoot with there grandfather. I'm not sure if i can even spectate a shooting event now without being in violation of a law?

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by deprived of 2A

IF they felt I was so violent you woud think they would have kept it a felony? I find this to be crazy. I could see if it was an active law back then and I agreed to it. I would have to grin and bear it. This issue has never even surfaced until now, trying to buy youth rifles for my boys so they could hunt and target shoot with there grandfather. I'm not sure if i can even spectate a shooting event now without being in violation of a law?

You are not alone. This law has deprived many of their rights.

[dad1]

This ATF link has been up dated! The answer to question one, has been expanded!
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/misd...ml#description

[deprived of 2A]

so now they will except expungments? is this what you are referring too?

[Grayblue]

Life time ban of gun right for domestic violence misdemeanor is just plain wrong.

Anyone who knows what kind of bull**** can get you a DV charge can attest to that.

Some feminist activist, the ignorant kind, makes the society to view all domestic violence case as some evil brute guy beating up an innocent weak woman in a relationship. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of DV cases are anything but that. I've seen it with my own eyes. In majority of cases it's two people going stupid at each other. Both are agressors and victims, and it's not a "battered wife syndrom" cases. So, if the system responds to those according to those ignorant activist's view point, it will be an overreaction, and punishment will not fit the crime.

[Burbur]

Originally Posted by ke6guj

that is because the law that implemented that lifetime ban wasn't passed until ~6 years AFTER your plea.

They did the same thing for DUIs a few years ago too. You used to carry it 7 years, then it became 10, post facto.

No one really cares about law breakers. Go ahead, violate them any way you want. (/sarcasm, if you couldn't tell)

[dad1]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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.

Originally Posted by anthonyca

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.

I copied this from the 273.5 PC! I believe it's only 7 years, that a prior conviction for 273.5 can be used against a person.

(g) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a
sentence is suspended, for any defendant convicted under subdivision
(a) who has been convicted of any prior offense specified in
subdivision (e), the court shall impose one of the following
conditions of probation:
(1) If the defendant has suffered one prior conviction within the
previous seven years for a violation of any offense specified in
subdivision (e), it shall be a condition thereof, in addition to the
provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he or she be
imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 15 days.
(2) If the defendant has suffered two or more prior convictions
within the previous seven years for a violation of any offense
specified in subdivision (e), it shall be a condition of probation,
in addition to the provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he
or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 60 days.
(3) The court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the
mandatory imprisonment required by this subdivision shall not be
imposed and shall state on the record its reasons for finding good
cause.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by dad

I copied this from the 273.5 PC! I believe it's only 7 years, that a prior conviction for 273.5 can be used against a person.

(g) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a
sentence is suspended, for any defendant convicted under subdivision
(a) who has been convicted of any prior offense specified in
subdivision (e), the court shall impose one of the following
conditions of probation:
(1) If the defendant has suffered one prior conviction within the
previous seven years for a violation of any offense specified in
subdivision (e), it shall be a condition thereof, in addition to the
provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he or she be
imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 15 days.
(2) If the defendant has suffered two or more prior convictions
within the previous seven years for a violation of any offense
specified in subdivision (e), it shall be a condition of probation,
in addition to the provisions contained in Section 1203.097, that he
or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than 60 days.
(3) The court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the
mandatory imprisonment required by this subdivision shall not be
imposed and shall state on the record its reasons for finding good
cause.

I believe the PC is referring to mandatory sentencing.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by M107A1

Feds are now asking for an extension to file reply to SAC until 09/26/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/29/

Can someone please post an update?

[M107A1]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

Can someone please post an update?

The Feds were granted an extension to file response to SAC. The new deadline is 10/03/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/31/

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by M107A1

The Feds were granted an extension to file response to SAC. The new deadline is 10/03/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/31/

This takes too long.

[M107A1]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

This takes too long.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully the delay is because they are sinking fast. I read in another thread, that upon a favorable outcome in this case, that it would only affect people within the Eastern District Federal Court. I was under the impression that because this a federal matter, it affects the entire United States of America. Is anyone able to clarify the validity of this?

[Drivedabizness]

Federal Court rulings are only binding in their own jurisdiction. A ruling in the eastern District of CA is binding in that District. A ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers the 9th Circuit.
Only the US Supreme Court issues rulings that directly impact the entire United States.

[deprived of 2A]

according to Mr.Kilmer's wife it will apply to all!

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

Federal Court rulings are only binding in their own jurisdiction. A ruling in the eastern District of CA is binding in that District. A ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers the 9th Circuit.
Only the US Supreme Court issues rulings that directly impact the entire United States.

A Federal District in California decision is binding on all of California but not on e.g. Arizona. A 9th Circuit court of appeals decision is binding on all of the states in the 9th Circuit.

-Gene

[Drivedabizness]

Thanks, Gene. I didn't think I'd gone totally whacko!

[M107A1]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

A Federal District in California decision is binding on all of California but not on e.g. Arizona. A 9th Circuit court of appeals decision is binding on all of the states in the 9th Circuit.

-Gene

Thanks for the clarification.

[dad1]

There should be a law, that the court has to tell you about Lautenburg, before you are sentenced! No one in the judicial system told me any thing about a "life time ban"! Probation and the court, both said 10 years!
No one said any thing about life time!

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by dad

There should be a law, that the court has to tell you about Lautenburg, before you are sentenced! No one in the judicial system told me any thing about a "life time ban"! Probation and the court, both said 10 years!
No one said any thing about life time!

I know someone who was in the Army reserve at the time. He was 19 and has signed original letters from his attorney stating that he could have his record expunged and that would allow him to have gun rights so he could carry a gun in the Army. We know that was false but he and his GF at the time based his decision to plead guilty and not spend the rest of his pittance of a life savings on court costs and a lawyer.

He was the soldier of the year for his battalion and had never even had a speeding ticket or any contact with the police. He has never had any negative police contact in the 14 years since.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by M107A1

The Feds were granted an extension to file response to SAC. The new deadline is 10/03/11.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...911/215824/31/

Has the case been updated today?

[dad1]

10-3-2011

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by dad

10-3-2011

Thank you.

[deprived of 2A]

The feds keep claiming a person can get relief from the lifetime ban! where? how? can someone explain this process? please! I would really like to try this process out.

[dad1]

Originally Posted by deprived of 2A

The feds keep claiming a person can get relief from the lifetime ban! where? how? can someone explain this process? please! I would really like to try this process out.

You have 20 yrs., since your dv, correct?

[deprived of 2A]

it sounds like the feds link all d.v. cases together regardless of the situations! I truly feel for anyone who is dooped into taking a plea deal due to lack of finances for a lawyer, or who have bogus charges thrown on them! cause knowing first hand one and only one time will ruin you for "LIFE"

[deprived of 2A]

20 years is correct!

[dad1]

Originally Posted by deprived of 2A

20 years is correct!

Have you not received an E-mail and a pm from me?

[deprived of 2A]

Originally Posted by dad

Have you not received an E-mail and a pm from me?

yes sir found it.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by deprived of 2A

The feds keep claiming a person can get relief from the lifetime ban! where? how? can someone explain this process? please! I would really like to try this process out.

I would like to see someone try this misterious and elusive restoration process the Feds say exists. They should at least have to give us proof of anyone using this process.

[Librarian]

That was an interesting brief - thanks.

It seems part of the argument turns, in the minds of the US team, on loss of rightS vs loss of (one) right.

Apparently, if one did not also lose the right to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office at the same time as losing the right to own and possess firearms, then it was not your rightS that were restored by any California mechanism.

And therefore, one remains Federally disabled.

[anthonyca]

Originally Posted by Librarian

That was an interesting brief - thanks.

It seems part of the argument turns, in the minds of the US team, on loss of rightS vs loss of (one) right.

Apparently, if one did not also lose the right to vote, serve on juries, and hold public office at the same time as losing the right to own and possess firearms, then it was not your rightS that were restored by any California mechanism.

And therefore, one remains Federally disabled.

James Madison: Creeping Incrementalism
"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison, speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

Our government went from saying that the second amendment was not a right, to saying that as long as they take one right at a time nothing is wrong.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by anthonyca

Our government went from saying that the second amendment was not a right, to saying that as long as they take one right at a time nothing is wrong.

And yet, in the grand scheme of things, making them use the "r-word" is a win.

7x57

[Westerner]

Is the presiding judge in this case more Liberal or Conservative?

[dad1]

They should have answered "no", to question 11i, on the ATF Form 4473! Then they would know, who was approved or denied, and take that to court!

[dad1]

What is Kilmer's next move?

[banned4life]

Originally Posted by dad

They should have answered "no", to question 11i, on the ATF Form 4473! Then they would know, who was approved or denied, and take that to court!

Dad
Is there some way to take this to court to get your 'gun rights' restored?
Is the procedure done in a Federal or California court as the feds seem to say "California can't restore what they didn't take away"

[OleCuss]

I don't know what the next legal move is, but Don Kilmer is quite capable of developing a case which is ready for appeals all the way up. . .

[dad1]

Originally Posted by banned4life

Dad
Is there some way to take this to court to get your 'gun rights' restored?
Is the procedure done in a Federal or California court as the feds seem to say "California can't restore what they didn't take away"

I sent you a pm!

Originally Posted by OleCuss

I don't know what the next legal move is, but Don Kilmer is quite capable of developing a case which is ready for appeals all the way up. . .

I hope so!

[w2c3Raider]

If a person marries someone convicted of DV in a previous marriage, how does the law apply there?

What I mean is would the firearm owner have to surrender or move their guns out of the house?

Would there be any charges for the DV offender for living in the home with the firearms present?

[MP301]

The DV person under current legal status cannot have control, possession etc. The Non prohibited person does not lose thier rights. But if you leave guns laying around it could get the prohibited person in deep Kimchee. They have to be locked up and the prohibited person cannot have a key or combo.