|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 6, 2011, 08:33 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Holder and the Feds Sued Over Lifetime MCDV Prohibition: Lautenberg
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 infamous Lautenberg ammendment. The case is Enos V Holder. http://madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm |
April 6, 2011, 09:45 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A "sleeper" case!
Enos, et al v. Holder, et al. Case #2:10-CV-02911-JAM-EFB. 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 case is at the MSJ stage. More when I can get to PACER. |
April 6, 2011, 11:06 PM | #3 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm about to edit the 2A thread and include this case.
You should know that the 9 plaintiffs were selected by Donald Kilmer (Nordyke) to represent a certain segment of people who are facing a lifetime gun prohibition, because the Feds refuse to recognize CA statutory law that has removed the disability from these people. While this case, if successful, will not remove the Lautenberg amendment from the Federal Codes, it will force the feds to recognize States that, by statute, return a citizens gun rights. 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 All of these should show up on the "Docket" later tonight... But in case they don't, here ya are. |
April 6, 2011, 11:16 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,247
|
Is WA state a part of the suit? Our state law allows for reinstatement after five years of good behavior by the superior court.
|
April 6, 2011, 11:38 PM | #5 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The relevant portion of federal law is:
Quote:
CA law is specific. It specifies exactly what an MCDV is and the punishments (such as loss of firearms) and the length of time to have your rights restored. I don't know that WA law is the same. |
|
April 7, 2011, 09:04 AM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Thank you Al Norris. As you know, this is a very important case for the RKBA. Unfortunately very few people feel the same way.
I joined the Madison Society after learning of this case and I am trying to get attention directed here and hopefully have people donate. As you said, Donald Kilmer is the attorney who first won incorporation for us in Nordyke (before going en banc) and Nordyke III is about to be decided. I am surprised at how little interest there is in this case. I believe it should be well funded as it is important for the 1st,2nd,5th, and 10th amendments. This could be far reaching. |
April 7, 2011, 04:27 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,424
|
Quote:
Those people that are not currently interested, really should be. Most people don't understand that 99% of domestic violence charges are not brought on by the 'victim', but the court system itself - and that there are many "unconventional" ways to get charged (and convicted). If this issue is not addressed, it could very easily have a far-reaching affect on gun (and other) rights, as a whole. My personal interest in this issue comes from my younger brother. There is a lot of background I won't cover, but it all boils down to a quick explanation: My younger brother's girlfriend brought their two little girls over to visit, at his house. She became upset, took his truck keys (his only mode of transportation) and cell phone, put the girls in the car, and tried to leave. He stood in front of the car, and demanded he be allowed to tell his girls goodbye, and that his keys and phone be given back. She refused, put the car in gear, and tried to drive over him. As he was moving out of the way, he pushed off of the windshield with one hand, as his body was rolling over the front fender... and made the mistake of yelling, "I'll kill you, you <expletive>". He hit the ground, and she never stopped - just kept driving. She returned with sheriff's deputies about an hour later. Even though there were three witnesses that verified she ran into him with the car, as the first act of aggression from either party; he was ultimately charged with 8 counts of domestic violence: One charge of a "Domestic Terroristic Threat", for "I'll kill you". One charge of domestic violence, for "hitting" the windshield, after blocking her exit from the property. Four charges of "Domestic Violence in the Presence of a Minor"; one for each of the previous charges, for each child. Two charges of domestic violence, for swearing in the presence of a minor. The primary charges and 'swearing in the presence' charges were dropped, when a judge ruled that blocking her exit from the property was not enough to warrant her response (hitting him with the car). However, the "-in the Presence of a Minor" charges resulted in conviction later on (even though the judge decided they were baseless!), and simply being charged with the "Terroristic Threat" is enough to revoke his firearm rights, permanently (according to current Federal Interpretations). A few months down the road, he won an appeal to have the "-in the Presence of a Minor" convictions expunged. Yet, he still can't so much as touch a firearm, because of a charge that was ruled to be baseless - the "Terroristic Threat". The majority of people in the U.S. just don't understand how easy it is to be charged with domestic violence (my brother's experience aside), and how much simply being charged can change your life. A conviction is bad, but just being charged can be life-altering. Another problem with the "awareness level", is that many of the people dealing with this problem are not actively participating in firearms activities (obviously ). With their opinions, experiences, and views not being injected into discussions on boards like TFL, many people just aren't aware of the issues at stake, and the reasons to care about this issue.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
April 7, 2011, 04:33 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
In some states the "charges" themselves can be expunged in addition to any convictions. I have a cousin who stole a VW bug and got three years in the pen who was later able to get the whole thing expunged...
__________________
Molon Labe |
April 7, 2011, 07:25 PM | #9 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Currently however, unless you go through the § 925 relief, as the feds are not interpreting § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) in the correct manor.
Oh, did I forget to mention that § 925 is not being funded? Get your application for relief of firearms disability, fill it out and send it in (with the required fee) and after a couple or three weeks, it will be returned to you (along with your uncashed check). A nice letter will accompany the return telling you that the program is not being funded by the Congress, so they can't even reject the application. It is merely returned. The upshot of this, is that the Courts have already ruled that since the application was not denied, you don't have a claim before the court. So what does this case do? If successful on the facial challenge (which I think is very, very slim), it overturns the Lautenberg amendment. If successful on the as-applied challenge, it will allow the States Legislatures to enact statutory law (similar to CA law) to relieve the disability. |
April 8, 2011, 08:10 AM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
The definition of a MCDV under 921(a)(33) is: Quote:
Unless the prohibition is based upon a protective order but that is not permanent. |
||
April 8, 2011, 08:13 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
I've also seen women (and men) who lie to a magistrate to obtain a restraining order against the guy. The restrainee is aware of the order, as they're served with it. The other party, however, keeps calling them and telling them they want to continue the relationship. The restrainee, who usually loves them, agrees. Everything is fine. Until, that is, the restrainee upsets the restrainer. Then 911 is called, and LEOs end up arresting the restrainee for violation of the restraining order (or protective order, or whatever it is in whatever state). You have a guy or girl who's never really committed real domestic violence, but now they are all but convicted of a DV offense. Bye Bye gun collection. This happens. I've seen it happen. |
|
April 9, 2011, 11:57 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
http://www.madison-society.org/laws/...-1-MTD-MPA.pdf
Look at page 16 where the government argues that gun rights are not civil rights. |
May 11, 2011, 08:20 AM | #13 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Al Norris posted an informative update in post #166 here http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=416973&page=7
The government is arguing that the second amendment is not a civil right and that a lifetime ban of the right to keep and bear arms is not enough of a substantial burden. Please consider donating to help this cause. Fowrarding information on this case is also helpful and many gun right people find it an interesting case. http://www.madison-society.org/donation.html This case goes beyond misdemeanor lifetime bans. |
June 25, 2011, 02:35 PM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Mr. Kilmer filed a notice of supplemental authority. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.23.0.pdf
Interesting. |
June 25, 2011, 02:52 PM | #15 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Okay, I was vaguely aware of the Bond case, but how does it bear on the case in California?
|
June 25, 2011, 03:16 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
Not to mention members of the Military. I have to do what is termed a Lautenberg Act for military personnel assigned to the units I work for annually.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
June 27, 2011, 08:22 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 854
|
I'll be honest and say that wasn't even aware of this case until yesterday. I knew about states restricting gun rights after certain charges/convictions, but I didn't know that was being fought in the courts. I can say this. In the case of Al's brother, the LEOs are certainly going overboard. There are much more appropriate ways to handle that. The convictions are ludicrous. I'm glad to know this law is being fought and will be watching it closely. Thanks for the information.
|
June 27, 2011, 09:54 PM | #18 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Bond case is a 10th amendment case and directly bears on CA laws in restoring rights to "prohibited persons."
Quote:
|
|
June 28, 2011, 05:36 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
Hope they win and Lautenberg gets thrown out. That will give the anti gun folks a brain hemmorage.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
July 3, 2011, 07:36 PM | #20 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Posts: 2
|
Ruling On Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Does anyone know how long the court has to rule on the MTD?
|
July 8, 2011, 06:15 PM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Update. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.24.0.pdf
Don Kilmer responded here. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=417935&page=5 |
July 8, 2011, 07:31 PM | #22 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
CA Attorney Donald Kilmer sent me an email this afternoon. I got home from work, read the email, then the decision. For those who don't understand legal speak, here is what has happened:
In the matter of Enos v. Holder (lifetime ban on misdemeanor domestic violence, Don Kilmer, CA), the court has found that Bastasini, Mercado, Groves, Monteiro, Erickson, and Newman lack standing and are dismissed, pending a second amended complaint. The court also dismissed the First, Tenth and Fifth Amendment claims of Enos (and subsequently all parties), with prejudice. The claims for declaratory relief and Second Amendment claims are still alive, pending a second amended complaint, which must be filed within 20 days. Judgment dated July 7th and entered today, July 8th. The ruling is here. As Don said to me, "Mixed result, but mostly good." The lawsuit is still alive. SAC will be due on or before Aug. 4th. |
July 8, 2011, 08:38 PM | #23 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
Thanks for the synopsis Al.
The 10th dismissal with prejudice is upsetting. |
July 11, 2011, 01:44 AM | #24 |
Member
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 19
|
This forum won't let me edit the title, but I was asked by someone very important to change the title of this thread on Calguns to, "the Feds are Closer To Loosing......."
|
July 11, 2011, 02:22 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
this kinda stuff scares me...we all know people's careers can go caput by one domestic too. maybe that's a stretch but I saw one cop on the news who lost his job only to see himself win the case and have to file suit to get his job back. I mean that's a perfect example of being found innocent and suffering negative consequences anyways. Do yourself a favor, take the wife out to dinner and tell her you love her. ps- I am not sure if the guy even got his job back...
First thing that happens on a bad domestic(meaning the cops don't just leave while leaving it off the record after the talk), guns are confiscated. Second thing if you're any kind of LEO, the police Will call your work via protocol.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|
|