|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 20, 2011, 07:37 AM | #51 |
Member
Join Date: September 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 92
|
I was just reading over the Governments "dismiss" motion ... what a sick joke!
From their point of view: "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. However, the definition of the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” includes the following exception: 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." Here comes the double talk: "The test for whether one’s civil rights have been restored is whether the individual has lost and regained his right to vote, to sit on a jury, and to hold public office." "In California, as in most states, a conviction for a misdemeanor does not result in the loss of civil rights." "Because plaintiffs cannot allege that their civil rights were taken away, they cannot allege that they have had their civil rights restored within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)." ???? If they never lost their civil rights...then what are we doing here???? This whole law is unconstitutional! What is wrong with these courts? Read it yourself http://madison-society.org/laws/032-1%20MTD%20PaA.pdf |
November 20, 2011, 01:34 PM | #52 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
American Made, it is not "double-talk."
Their argument is that there is no civil right when considering the right to keep and bear arms. It is merely yet another twist of the Heller decision. We have seen this in most of the cases we are following on 2A litigation. Have you looked at the first 4 posts in the Current 2A Cases thread? This case is #39 on the hit parade (post #3) (Regardless, that thread has all the relevant 2A cases listed and cataloged). You will find a link to the Internet Archives case docket, a link to the Justia Summary and a link to this very thread. At the docket, you will find document #32.1, which is the download-able PDF file that you linked to. That document was made available back on 10-03, when it was filed. It was reported both here and within the 2A cases thread. On 10-13, you will see a stipulated proposed order for continuance (#33) and on 10-19, the Judge accepted the proposed order (#35). In that order, the next item of business will be the plaintiffs filing of their Opposition to the MTD, due on 01-11-2012 and the defendants reply due on 01-18-2012. Additionally, the plaintiffs will file a cross-motion (an MSJ) on 12-14-2011 with a response on 01-11-2012 and reply due on 01-18-2012. A hearing on 01-25-2012 will be held to hear all current motions. |
November 20, 2011, 09:04 PM | #53 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Don Kilmer on Tom Greshem's Gun Talk. The subject is this case, Enos v Holder. http://guntalk.libsyn.com/webpage/gu...1-11-06-part-b
Here is the link to donate to this fight. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm |
December 14, 2011, 06:33 PM | #54 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2011
Posts: 22
|
According to documents filed 12/13/2011 the MSJ from the plantiffs has been delayed until the 19th.
|
December 21, 2011, 12:44 AM | #55 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
|
December 21, 2011, 09:03 AM | #56 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I fixed the links to the documents in the above post.
What Don Kilmer is telling the court is that while the Lautenberg Amendment may very well be constitutional, it is the US Governments interpretation of the means to restore the disability that is flawed as well as the lifetime ban for such a misdemeanor, when clear and convincing evidence shows that someone convicted of this crime can be rehabilitated and therefore attain the status of a "Law Abiding Citizen." |
January 12, 2012, 12:54 PM | #57 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, the defendants filed their brief in opposition to plaintiffs MSJ. You can read it here.
My take on the brief: Quote:
Quote:
Here the defendants are regurgitating the same defense that they (successfully) used earlier at the district court: The RKBA is not a civil right. Quote:
All in all, the entire brief is a distillation of the defense arguments previously made at the district court. They were successful earlier, why not now? The differences between this case and the Skoien and Smith cases (cited as binding precedent by the defense), is that these plaintiffs have not repeated the offenses and are not before the court as criminal defendants. This gives lie to the Court in Smith, which said: In Congress’s judgment and as demonstrated by social scientists, domestic violence misdemeanants are prone to repeated acts of intrafamily violence. Past domestic violence is an indicator of future crimes of violence, and Congress legislated with that trend in mind. As these plaintiffs have shown no proclivity to repeat the offense(s) they were convicted of. The plaintiffs have a tough fight to separate their non-criminal action from the weight of precedence in the form of prior criminal cases. |
|||
January 12, 2012, 11:23 PM | #58 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Hello Al. I posted some questions in the calguns thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=417935 but you answered them here before I asked.
Thank you for your help. |
January 15, 2012, 12:36 AM | #59 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A mere 4 hours after the Government filed their latest brief, Don Kilmer filed the plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants MTD.
Shame that RECAP appears to be messed up at the moment. As Don's Opposition to the Defendants MTD was really good. We should have been seeing Docket item #50: (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.215824/gov.uscourts.caed.215824.50.pdf) by now. But the docket wasn't updated nor was the pdf properly placed in the archive. Indeed, my reading of that brief showed that Don called them on every thing I was inwardly screaming at them! An observation, if I may. The recent ruling in Rehlander (1st CCA) should be of some small benefit, unless I have misread what the court said. |
February 29, 2012, 11:00 PM | #60 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
The government was granted the motion to dismiss. Gun rights are not civil rights.
|
March 2, 2012, 09:03 AM | #61 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, the Federal District Court granted the defendants Motion To Dismiss. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....15824.63.0.pdf
The government has argued all along that the RKBA are not civil rights, as defined in the code. The Judge merely agreed. The appeal was filed within hours of the decision. |
March 3, 2012, 03:38 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,795
|
I know an individual who was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault, a felony. After ser ving his time, he was abole to go to court and ask for restoration of his civil rights. which was granted. Not only is she allowed to buy firearms, he has applied for and received a CCW permit.
I know the man and there are aspects of his case that smell so bad it would make a vulture puke but that's neihter here nor there. Whatever happened to the thought that once a man did his time, that he's paid his debt to society. Or is it better to punish him until the day he dies? If my wife and I should happen to have a shouting match, I could damn well end up in jail if the neighbors complained. We do have our differences every once in a while as probably every one of us here. Seems to me we are all at risk should the unthinkable happen. Paul B.
__________________
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION! |
March 5, 2012, 11:40 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
could it be that in our lifetimes (say 20 years) the 2A may be recognized as a civil right (as it is and should be recognized by the judicial system)
__________________
Molon Labe |
March 6, 2012, 12:22 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
It's about time this was addressed.
The law was unconstitutional on its face because it was an ex post facto law. Why this hasn't been addressed before now is a curiosity.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
March 6, 2012, 12:33 AM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Quote:
I addressed this HERE literally years ago and got ZERO response from the members of this board. I still haven't found anyone willing to carry this thing forward. There is just no interest. I originally addressed it HERE. Note the number of responses -- zero -- even though 92 members read the thread.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
May 13, 2012, 03:51 PM | #66 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Opening Brief: 07-09-2012 Response Brief: 08-08-2012 Reply Brief: 08-22-2012 |
|
May 27, 2012, 09:05 PM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
What goes around ...
Randy "Duke" Cunningham was a member of Congress when the defunding of the ATF's ability to restore rights occurred. Now it comes around to bite him. SOURCE Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey Last edited by Al Norris; May 27, 2012 at 09:42 PM. Reason: reformatteed quote |
|
May 28, 2012, 02:03 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
I know Im not a lawyer but this is just plain wrong...
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
July 10, 2012, 10:26 AM | #69 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Plaintiffs/Appellants filed their opening brief, yesterday morning (attached).
You may recall that the Fed.Gov has said that if 1) the right to vote, (2) the right to sit on a jury, and (3) the right to hold public office was not restored, then no rights were violated. This, regardless of Heller/McDonald that stated that the "right to keep and bear arms" was a fundamental right. Since, in their view, no rights were lost, none can be restored. Don Kilmer posits this, about the breadth of the governments position: Quote:
|
|
July 10, 2012, 11:04 PM | #70 | ||||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Let's look at some more quotes from the brief.
Pages 3&4: Quote:
The main arguments begin on page 18. However, pages 18-22 contain the preliminary arguments of this entire case (of which there are 4). It is much too much to quote here, but it should be required reading for those watching this case. These points really highlight what the law requires and the absurd manner in which the Fed.Gov is interpreting the law. Page 25: Quote:
Quote:
In part IV of the brief (the shortest part), should the court recognize that there is no method of restoring the 2A rights, Don writes (pages 32-34): Quote:
|
||||
July 10, 2012, 11:39 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
I like the Alice in Wonderland quotes (there's another at the end of the brief). I think the statutory language argument is the clearest path to victory here; i.e., Lautenberg itself contemplates regaining the 2A right upon restoration of civil rights and California automatically restores the right to own firearms after ten years.
That does raise a question. On page 10, paragraph 6, the brief states a state judge ruled that each of the plaintiffs "were entitled to have their pleas withdrawn and the case dismissed." If this is the case, I would think there is no conviction which is required by Lautenberg. IMO, the argument that the original pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently made because Lautenberg had not yet been enacted is a loser. Before Padilla v. Kentucky (cited in the brief), the federal courts were unanimous that lack of knowledge of collateral consequences of a guilty plea, such as losing the right to vote, did not make a guilty plea invalid. The Supreme Court in Padilla emphasized that the "automatic" deportation Padilla faced was virtually unique and limited its opinion to that issue only. The last I looked, all the lower courts (save one) have read Padilla to apply only where one pleads guilty without knowing he or she would face deportation. I also do not think Lautenberg is a true ex post facto law because a restriction on the 2A right would likely be considered a civil regulation and not a criminal punishment, much like those pleading guilty to sex offenses before sex offender registration statutes were passed. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court case upholding this is Alaska v. Smith (it's late so I'm going to forgo searching for it). |
July 11, 2012, 09:47 AM | #72 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
|
July 11, 2012, 11:18 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
|
|
July 12, 2012, 10:14 AM | #74 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Point 8, page 11 (pdf page 20):
Quote:
Of course, I could be wrong on what I remember as having read. |
|
July 12, 2012, 11:17 AM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
|
Any blanket law like that is a bad law imo. I think there are more important issues to fight personally like a full repeal of 1968 beepity bleep. I would not imagine that the law will be upheld but that's a strictly non legal scholar personal opinion.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|