[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Suthern1

Frank there seems to be a proficiency of semantics here.....

Does that mean anything in English? You seem to think it does, but the meaning, especially in the context of the posts in this thread, escapes me.

Originally Posted by Suthern1

...My original comment was to that of the Ordinance my next comment was to that of the misinterpretation of that first comment.
...

And what do you think this means when translated into English?

Originally Posted by Suthern1

...And you are wrong the conviction of violation of an non existent statute is void....

No, you are wrong and apparently don't understand what's going on.

1. Mr. Pauler was convicted in 2009 of violating a Wichita, Kansas municipal domestic battery ordinance by punching his girlfriend.
   
   
2. He possessed a firearm in 2014. He was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury for committing the federal crime of being a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(9).
   
   
3. Mr. Pauler moved to dismiss the indictment, which motion was denied by the district court. He was subsequently convicted of the violation of federal law and appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
   
   
4. The Tenth Circuit reversed finding that, based on the exact words of the applicable federal statutes a conviction for a violation of a local domestic violence ordinance, in contrast to a state domestic violence statute, did not trigger the firearms disqualification of 18 USC 922(g)(9). The Tenth Circuit therefore reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case to the district court to vacate Mr. Pauler's conviction and dismiss the indictment.
   
   
5. But note the following:
   
   
   • Mr Pauler's 2009 conviction under the Wichita ordinance was not a subject of the appeal. The conviction stands. It was that conviction under the Wichita ordinance that I was referring to in post 12 when I wrote:

     ....We're only discussing firearms disabilities arising from convictions under local ordinances for domestic violence. And no one is saying that Mr. Pauler's conviction is void, only that it doesn't trigger a firearms disability under federal law.....

     I thought that the context was clear, but perhaps I could have said it more clearly.
     
     
   • This case was one which turned on a question of statutory construction. The Tenth Circuit didn't find 18 USC 922(g)(9) to be void or invalid. They merely looked at what the statute said and meant and concluded that 18 USC 922(g)(9) was violated by the possession of a gun by someone convicted for a violation of a local domestic violence ordinance, as opposed to a state domestic violence statute.

... the proper action, I believe, would have been to reverse and render that the conviction was void. That didnt happen but it is my assertion that it should or at least could have been disposed in that manner.

Well first, did you read and understand the Tenth Circuit opinion. What happened was that the conviction was vacated and the indictment dismissed by the district court as directed by the court of appeals.

Second, what matters is what happened, not what you think should have happened. The question was posed to the Tenth Circuit, not to you. What the Tenth Circuit did is relevant. What you think should have happened is not.