|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 31, 2012, 02:44 AM | #76 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2012
Posts: 6
|
Time to expat?
I'm 45 and I have a 13 year old son who's showing some interest in hunting. I'm a "Lautenburg" because 20 years ago I splashed a drink in my girlfriends face. I haven't been in any trouble since. I need to know if you really believe this case will go anywhere? Otherwise I'm seriously considering taking my son and leaving the country so I can pass on my long family tradition of hunting.
|
July 31, 2012, 06:41 PM | #77 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2012
Posts: 14
|
Jason -
Your point about more important issues to fight makes sense, but the fights must be winnable. I don't see repeal of the 1968 GCA as winnable whether by Congress or by the courts. |
July 31, 2012, 06:59 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Actually as I understand it in early US history if you werent hanged for your particular crime then your rights were restored the moment you left the cell.
I think the intent always was if your not under arrest, or locked up then you would always have the right to bear arms even if per se something like a court house or whatever might have been a no go zone for arms. Unfortunately there seems to be little political will power to acknowledge the constitution let alone repeal or otherwise nullify law contrary to our founding documents. Future nations that write constitution type documents need to ensure that the documents they write are at least 1000 pages long per right spelling out the limits of government power... Might I also suggest the abolition of lawyers and the elimination of legal language beyond a short dictionary of terms with very specific meaning for use in contracts... Sort of a common english version of law...
__________________
Molon Labe |
July 31, 2012, 07:51 PM | #79 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2012
Posts: 14
|
I just looked at the thread Al Norris linked to:
"Try a conviction of common law battery that carried only a small fine, until years later the State changed the sentence to an indeterminate sentencing of up to 3 years. See Schrader v. Holder for that one. " I wish I had the link, but a loooooong time ago, I was reading an Alabama case that discussed the appropriate sentence for a particular misdemeanor. In Alabama, misdemeanors usually have a class A, B, or C, which indicates the maximum penalty. I don't remember what the outlawed behavior was, but for simplicity, let's just say it was throwing sharp items in a roadway The statute in question said: (hypothetically) Sec. 13A-13-6: Anyone who shall intentionally place or caused to be placed sharp items in the roadways shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The holding was rather simple. Even though it didn't follow the usual format, the word "misdemeanor" has a clear definition of "a crime that has a penalty of confinement of one year or less." There was another case that was somewhat similar. The crime didn't follow the usual pattern for felonies, which also has class A, B, or C. The crime said (I think) that anyone convicted shall be imprisoned for not more than two years. Using the same basic reasoning, the court said that two years is longer than the year-and-a-day definition of a felony, so the crime was therefore a felony. |
July 31, 2012, 08:12 PM | #80 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2012
Posts: 14
|
BGutzman -
The idea of simplifying the law to the point that we don't need lawyers is appealing. The trouble is, well, life. Law is the set of rules for the "game" of life. Life is a very complicated "game" so you can't have simple rules for it. Even without excessive regulation, law is still complex. I don't see a way around it. |
August 3, 2012, 12:49 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
The answer of course is, if they are a lawyer, don't vote them into public office. They like to protect their own you know.
|
August 13, 2012, 04:05 PM | #82 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2012
Location: NE US
Posts: 1
|
Disabled MCDV
I am extremely interested in the outcome of this case, not only because of the implications it would have to support second amendment rights but also personally.
Hello everyone... I too am a new found DVMC. I am not going to pass on the particulars but I can say that I intend to spend the rest of my life working to reform the DV laws. I was an avid hunter. I own and operated an outdoor forum, community and multi-site blog and have set up firearms events for women, children and and training \charity events. My organization helped get the castle docrtrine passed in Pennsylvania. All of these things I have abandoned. I could go on and on... I never thought this would happen to me. You think these things only happen to thugs, wife batterers and the like. Per advice from now fired attorney, I declined my prelim. I had lost a career dream job and had to go with a Public Defender. My PD tells me that I should take a first offenders program and have it expunged later on and deal with it. The day of my trial (Unknown to me that I am going to trial) I am summoned to arrive (in another part of the state) or plead in front of a judge. I get there almost 4 hours late. The atty has no case prepared, the judge refuses to extend the time to gather evidence and I am given an ultimatum - 6 months jail if I loose or no jail time and a 300$ fine if I plead. I struggle with the fact that the "Victim" wasn't my wife ( I was married and am in process of divorce) , she was an ex from a few years before that I had worked out a deal to trade some work that was mutually beneficial. Not my Spouse, cohabitator, wife, mother of my children, was this woman. I was charged with Simple Assault with DV tag (Misdemenaor of the 2nd Degree)- because I grabbed her by her arms and walked her to my door and put her outside and locked it. I have mountains of evidence that my attorney told me was not admissible... I am finally coming out of the shock and want to do something about it. This is my very first post and so I hope that I'm taken seriously. I am genuine and sincere and am looking for information that may enable me get my gun rights restored. I'm not going into the particulars of my case simply because I don't want to be judged. I have never hit a woman and do not intend to justify my actions to anyone. I am required to avoid minimization, denial and blame weekly for 30 weeks a requirement to fulfill due to the charge and rehabilitation. My future plans are to inform folks that the DV laws need to be changed. I think women should be protected and rightfully so but I do not think mandatory immediate incarceration, loss of firearms privilege or anything of the associated penalties that come with a charge that does not require evidence, witness or proof. Any information in regard to Enos vs. Holder, suggested legal council or steps to take to turn this around are appreciated. Regards and happy shooting to those of you who can.
__________________
veg·e·tar·i·an/ˌvejiˈte(ə)rēən/ Noun: Old Indian Name for Bad Hunter. Adjective: Of or relating to the exclusion of meat or other animal products from the diet. |
September 8, 2012, 08:16 PM | #83 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yesterday, the defendant(s) filed their response brief. In two weeks, we should have Enos' reply brief, at which point the briefing will be complete.
The fed.gov is relying upon United States v. Brailey, 408 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2005) - a pre Heller/McDonald case to define the “core civil rights of voting, serving as a juror, or holding public office.” After an analysis of pre-Heller cases, the fed.gov says, Quote:
In short, the 2A is not only not a "core" civil right, it is not a civil right within the meaning of the statute at question. |
|
September 22, 2012, 08:20 AM | #84 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Friday, Sept. 21st, Donald Kilmer filed the reply brief. Briefing is now complete and we await assignment for a date of the oral arguments.
This brief was perhaps the most powerful brief, to date, that I have read from Don. What we will now see is if the theories advanced by the Pltfs/Appellants will sway the 9th Circuit, or if they will hold that no State action can restore a fundamental right. That would be contrary to the law, as it is written. |
September 22, 2012, 09:07 AM | #85 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 5, 2012
Posts: 18
|
@BowOnly
I was convicted of misdemeanor DV in 2002. Since then I've been looking hard through laws regarding lawful gun ownership. From what I've read, it APPEARS the Gun Ban doesn't apply to me since the alleged "victim" isn't a former/current spouse, someone I had intercourse with, or child. I'm quite hesitant to attempt a gun purchase. Wish an Attorney would let me know for certain. |
September 22, 2012, 02:04 PM | #86 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 17, 2013, 02:52 PM | #87 | |
Member
Join Date: March 15, 2013
Posts: 23
|
Re: Holder and the Feds Sued Over Lifetime MCDV Prohibition: Lautenberg
Quote:
Neither will anger women's groups for appearing to come down on a woman for filing false charges, to do so means no reelection. Perjury is available for charges, but I challenge anyone to find an instance of a proven false accusation being prosecuted. |
|
March 17, 2013, 02:54 PM | #88 | |
Member
Join Date: March 15, 2013
Posts: 23
|
Re: Holder and the Feds Sued Over Lifetime MCDV Prohibition: Lautenberg
Quote:
|
|
March 18, 2013, 01:42 AM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Me neither too. Why this was not brought before the courts at its inception is beyond me. It is clearly ex post facto yet it survives.
__________________
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 18, 2013, 02:17 AM | #90 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Ex post facto essentially means being subject to criminal sanctions today for an act performed in the past which was legal when performed. That is different from from being subject to criminal liability for the continued possession of a thing after the effective date of a law making that thing illegal for you to possess. In terms of the Lautenberg amendment, it may be understood as follows:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 18, 2013, 03:00 AM | #91 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Key words:
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 |
|
March 18, 2013, 07:23 AM | #92 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In the case of the Lautenberg Amendment the prohibiting condition is a state conviction for a misdemeanor of domestic violence, just as under 18 USC 922(g)(1) it's a conviction of a felony, under 18 USC 922(g)(2) it's being a fugitive from justice, under 18 USC 922(g)(3) it includes the unlawful use of a controlled substance, under 18 USC 922(g)(7) it's having renounced United States citizenship, etc. But the crime that might be punished is not the act of domestic violence, or the prior act resulting in the felony conviction, or the renunciation of citizenship. It's the possession of a gun by such a person. As you and others have noted, Don Kilmer, a well known, experienced, skilled and knowledgeable lawyer, did not raise ex post facto as part of his challenge, on behalf of several plaintiffs, of the Lautenberg Amendment. If that would have been a fruitful basis for challenge, he no doubt would have used it as a basis for a claim for relief in addition to the nine claims for relief he sets out in the initial complaint. The Lautenberg Amendment has been challenged in other litigation and upheld at the Circuit Court level (see U.S. v. Hartsock, 347 F.3d 1 (1st Cir., 2003); U.S. v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir., 2010); U.S. v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir., 2009); and U.S. v. Booker, 644 F.3d 12 (1st Cir., 2011)). In none of those cases was ex post facto raised. Are we to conclude that the plaintiff's lawyer in each of those cases was so incompetent as to ignore a potentially meritorious line of attack on the federal law?
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 18, 2013, 10:25 AM | #93 |
Member
Join Date: December 23, 2007
Location: Central South Carolina
Posts: 89
|
Does this mean that if Congress were to pass more laws similar in nature to the Lautenberg, incrementally referencing "lesser" crimes, eventually you could be a prohibited person because you paid a speeding ticket 20 years ago?
I am not being sarcastic; I am genuinely curious. Rick
__________________
NRA Training Counselor NRA Advanced Pistol Instructor NRA RTBAV Regional Counselor Member IALEFI, SCLEOA |
March 18, 2013, 11:09 AM | #94 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
"But the crime that might be punished is not the act of domestic violence, or the prior act resulting in the felony conviction, or the renunciation of citizenship. It's the possession of a gun by such a person. "
So to remain legal you must forego your right to arms which is a punishment in and of itself. If you possess a firearm, you will be punished. Yes, there will be charges, trial and even more punishment meted out but the restriction of rights is a punishment.
__________________
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 18, 2013, 11:09 AM | #95 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; March 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM. Reason: correct typo |
|
March 18, 2013, 11:16 AM | #96 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Ex post facto is not the only basis upon which to challenge Lautenberg. It's merely one that won't work. A law can be vulnerable to constitutional challenge even if it's not an ex post facto law. And it's certainly worthwhile to understand this so as to avoid wasting time and resources pursuing challenges on bases that can't succeed.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 18, 2013, 12:06 PM | #97 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Considering many times, it has been mentioned lawyers throw out the kitchen sink in the first complaint just to cover all their bases, yeah, I am surprised it wasn't there.
I also think:
Last edited by JimDandy; March 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM. |
||||
March 18, 2013, 12:39 PM | #98 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
I don't know the other lawyers. I do know Don Kilmer and have every reason to respect his skill, knowledge and judgment.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
March 18, 2013, 01:03 PM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I don't know him, but assume skill is there until reason to believe otherwise. I was just referring to other posts in other threads where it's been mentioned that in preliminary hearings/complaints lawyers on both sides cover every ground they can think of so they won't be prevented from covering them again later because they didn't raise them from the beginning. Ex Post Facto has been ruled on before, which is one reason not to. But the right argument could open the door again, which would be a reason to raise it and let them quash it if they can. I think the key would be getting the firearms disability categorized as a punishment.
|
March 18, 2013, 01:32 PM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Re: Holder and the Feds Sued Over Lifetime MCDV Prohibition: Lautenberg
Quote:
I agree it's unfair as it stands. But as Frank said, it's up to us to send good folks to Washington to pass good laws. |
|
|
|