Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-06-2011, 4:58 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Lifetime Ban for Misdemeanor Domestic "Violence" (Enos v Holder)

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

Last edited by anthonyca; 06-10-2015 at 4:14 PM.. Reason: Update
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-06-2011, 5:07 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,174
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!

Last edited by MP301; 04-08-2011 at 4:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-06-2011, 5:12 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,498
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-06-2011, 5:29 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2011, 5:35 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2011, 6:41 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,292
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
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.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2011, 7:52 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-06-2011, 8:02 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
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.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-06-2011, 8:07 PM
LAWABIDINGCITIZEN's Avatar
LAWABIDINGCITIZEN LAWABIDINGCITIZEN is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: VC
Posts: 881
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
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 !
__________________
You have to obey the law, no matter how STUPID it is.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-06-2011, 8:43 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-06-2011, 10:27 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-07-2011, 6:41 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great post. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-07-2011, 8:05 AM
J.D.Allen J.D.Allen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
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.
__________________
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"-Obi Wan Kenobi

the question here is not whether the carrying of arms is a good idea—the question is
whether carrying arms is constitutionally protected. Objective standards and due process—not
Defendants’ philosophy or personal beliefs about the value of this activity—must carry the day-Alan Gura
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-07-2011, 8:41 AM
mofugly13's Avatar
mofugly13 mofugly13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 606
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety."
A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-07-2011, 9:08 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofugly13 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-07-2011, 9:10 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofugly13 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-07-2011, 9:28 AM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-07-2011, 9:35 AM
J.D.Allen J.D.Allen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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...
__________________
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"-Obi Wan Kenobi

the question here is not whether the carrying of arms is a good idea—the question is
whether carrying arms is constitutionally protected. Objective standards and due process—not
Defendants’ philosophy or personal beliefs about the value of this activity—must carry the day-Alan Gura
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-07-2011, 9:36 AM
jl123's Avatar
jl123 jl123 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Hollywood...belly of the beast
Posts: 4,926
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Smokeybehr's Avatar
Smokeybehr Smokeybehr is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CM96xx
Posts: 797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Rule #1: Keep your booger hook off the bang-switch!
Cruz/West 2016 - You STILL want to call me a racist tea bagger?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:14 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
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.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.

Last edited by nick; 04-07-2011 at 10:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:26 AM
bluev7 bluev7 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: PS
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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!!!?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:43 AM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-07-2011, 2:04 PM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-07-2011, 2:41 PM
Munk's Avatar
Munk Munk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarville View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by greasemonkey View Post
1911's instill fairy dust in the bullets, making them more deadly.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-07-2011, 5:21 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-07-2011, 8:24 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokeybehr View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-07-2011, 8:30 PM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
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.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-07-2011, 8:59 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarville View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:08 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,036
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd View Post
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
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-07-2011, 10:36 PM
jshoebot's Avatar
jshoebot jshoebot is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Summerville, SC
Posts: 1,866
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca
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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-08-2011, 1:46 AM
NorCalRedneck NorCalRedneck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Reno
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-08-2011, 4:06 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jshoebot View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-08-2011, 4:13 AM
jl123's Avatar
jl123 jl123 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Hollywood...belly of the beast
Posts: 4,926
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-08-2011, 4:24 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,084
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jl123 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-08-2011, 4:27 AM
jshoebot's Avatar
jshoebot jshoebot is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Summerville, SC
Posts: 1,866
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jl123
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.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-08-2011, 5:01 AM
jl123's Avatar
jl123 jl123 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Hollywood...belly of the beast
Posts: 4,926
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jshoebot View Post
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.
This is correct. Judges blatantly lie.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-08-2011, 5:41 AM
joe_sun's Avatar
joe_sun joe_sun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Future Member of the Quitters Club Nampa, ID in July 2016!
Posts: 1,772
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-08-2011, 10:00 AM
SgtDinosaur's Avatar
SgtDinosaur SgtDinosaur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 1,387
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

If memory serves, that draconian law was passed during the OJ case hysteria. It is more than overdue to be struck down.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-08-2011, 10:04 AM
The Director's Avatar
The Director The Director is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hollywood, baby
Posts: 2,771
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Huh. Maybe Lee Baca will get to carry a gun again.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:21 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.