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
  #41  
Old 04-08-2011, 10:09 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munk View Post
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.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-08-2011, 11:14 AM
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 NorCalRedneck View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-08-2011, 6:57 PM
Westerner Westerner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow its about time. Please keep this case/thread updated.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-08-2011, 7:46 PM
Quser.619's Avatar
Quser.619 Quser.619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 781
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Have a buddy that does bail bonds, most common bond they post is DV. He's says the majority he meets are innocent
__________________
‘‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’

— Patrick Henry

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-08-2011, 8:17 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner View Post
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.
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-09-2011, 7:32 AM
shocknm's Avatar
shocknm shocknm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 384
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default



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
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo Bowling

When them sum bit*#@$ start droppin from the sky like in Red Dawn.... I'll be layun' right here. Poppin motherf*&%#@$. Pew.

Last edited by shocknm; 04-09-2011 at 7:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-09-2011, 8:09 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 joe_sun View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-09-2011, 8:35 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
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/...-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.

Last edited by anthonyca; 04-09-2011 at 8:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-09-2011, 9:57 AM
Munk's Avatar
Munk Munk is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by greasemonkey View Post
1911's instill fairy dust in the bullets, making them more deadly.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-10-2011, 8:41 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
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.
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/...-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.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-10-2011, 9:39 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,588
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-10-2011, 9:48 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-10-2011, 1:32 PM
Aleksandr Mravinsky's Avatar
Aleksandr Mravinsky Aleksandr Mravinsky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 239
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.
If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, why are they even walking the streets?
__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-10-2011, 1:36 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksandr Mravinsky View Post
If the person is too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, why are they even walking the streets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
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.
__________________
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
  #55  
Old 04-10-2011, 11:44 PM
Hdawg's Avatar
Hdawg Hdawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 435
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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!

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Need 22 ammo for your kids to shoot?
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-10-2011, 11:58 PM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hdawg View Post
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!

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.
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-11-2011, 12:10 AM
Hdawg's Avatar
Hdawg Hdawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 435
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Need 22 ammo for your kids to shoot?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-11-2011, 12:21 AM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

I agree. Things would definately be different if the rules were applied equally. Without a doubt.
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-11-2011, 11:11 AM
BigBamBoo's Avatar
BigBamBoo BigBamBoo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Redding,CA.
Posts: 4,080
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
Bring hay for my horse....wine for my men....and mud for my turtle!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
It makes it bigger and longer.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-11-2011, 11:25 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,663
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleksandr Mravinsky View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-11-2011, 12:03 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBamBoo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-11-2011, 12:07 PM
cineski's Avatar
cineski cineski is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,064
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Any person who can't handle any of the freedoms the United States provides, should not be a part of said society.
__________________
The US government employs people with American's tax money to infiltrate social media, chat rooms and forums to disrupt and indoctrinate the public....including here on CG.

Sig Sauer: "When you don't want to place too great an emphasis on reliability"
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-11-2011, 12:35 PM
Spartan Spartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 38
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-11-2011, 1:00 PM
SunTzu's Avatar
SunTzu SunTzu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default RE: Page 16 of MTD

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.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-11-2011, 2:45 PM
BoxesOfLiberty's Avatar
BoxesOfLiberty BoxesOfLiberty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 337
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quoting a decision by the Ninth on page 7:

Quote:
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):

Quote:
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.
__________________
Dennis Murray

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHowdershelt
There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-11-2011, 2:58 PM
BigBamBoo's Avatar
BigBamBoo BigBamBoo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Redding,CA.
Posts: 4,080
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

............
__________________
Bring hay for my horse....wine for my men....and mud for my turtle!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
It makes it bigger and longer.

Last edited by BigBamBoo; 08-11-2011 at 7:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-11-2011, 3:05 PM
MasterYong's Avatar
MasterYong MasterYong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Humboldt County California
Posts: 2,737
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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!
__________________
01001100 01100101 01100001 01110010 01101110 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110011 01110111 01101001 01101101 00100000 01001001 00100111 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110011 01100101 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100100 01101111 01110111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100001 01110010 01101001 01111010 01101111 01101110 01100001 00100000 01100010 01100001 01111001 00101110

Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-11-2011, 3:44 PM
JimSar's Avatar
JimSar JimSar is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Solano County
Posts: 376
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What a coincidence ... Solano County Superior Court judge arrested by Vallejo PD last night on domestic violence charges.
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_17820698

Last edited by JimSar; 04-11-2011 at 3:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-11-2011, 3:50 PM
Westerner Westerner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-11-2011, 4:15 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBamBoo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-11-2011, 7:11 PM
BigBamBoo's Avatar
BigBamBoo BigBamBoo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Redding,CA.
Posts: 4,080
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

..........
__________________
Bring hay for my horse....wine for my men....and mud for my turtle!

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
- Sigmund Freud

Quote:
Originally Posted by ar15barrels View Post
It makes it bigger and longer.

Last edited by BigBamBoo; 08-11-2011 at 7:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-11-2011, 8:59 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-11-2011, 10:27 PM
staryeyes staryeyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-11-2011, 11:06 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,869
iTrader: 5 / 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.
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.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-11-2011, 11:24 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,869
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
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
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Last edited by JDay; 04-11-2011 at 11:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-11-2011, 11:39 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,869
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan View Post
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/wfr...349.C06.htm/qx

Quote:
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.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

Last edited by JDay; 04-11-2011 at 11:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-12-2011, 7:02 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore View Post
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."
__________________
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
  #78  
Old 04-12-2011, 9:09 AM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smokeybehr View Post
"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)
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-12-2011, 10:09 AM
dark_ninja's Avatar
dark_ninja dark_ninja is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hawthorne
Posts: 376
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The 2nd Amendment is not a civil right,huh? Ridiculous!

I just made my donation to the Madison Foundation.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-14-2011, 9:45 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dark_ninja View Post
The 2nd Amendment is not a civil right,huh? Ridiculous!

I just made my donation to the Madison Foundation.
Thank you.
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 1:33 AM.




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.