View Single Post
Old July 11, 2011, 07:53 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,094
In reviewing the court's order, it appears that the important points are:

(1) Only those who have actually been denied the right to purchase firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statue. Simply being dissuaded from trying to purchase a firearm is not enough.

(2) The court recognized that other courts have held the statute not to be unconstitutional on its face. However, the court has kept alive the single "as applied" challenge; that being that the lifetime ban is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff Enos because his conviction was more than ten years old and California had restored his right to own a firearm under state law.
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

no guns = might makes right
KyJim is offline  
Page generated in 0.03151 seconds with 7 queries