One to Watch: US v. Hayes - Page 2

jimpeel · February 24, 2009, 10:22 PM

I felt like I was reading an English composition paper on sentence structure and parsing with that ruling.

Ricky B · February 24, 2009, 11:13 PM

Ex post facto was not an issue in the case, only the construction of a poorly worded statute.

The 2A and ex post facto may figure in subsequent proceedings, but no ruling was made with respect to those matters in this opinion.

SPUSCG · February 25, 2009, 04:14 PM

wondering, what exactly does this case mean, that anyone covincted of domestic violence cant own guns? Or certain offenses? Ive heard so many things about the case and was wondering on clarity, ive known several people who have been involved in some BS cases, verbal or alleged assaults that often didn't happen.

jimpeel · February 25, 2009, 08:41 PM

The fallacy in the law has always been that you could beat the livin' c--- out of a woman who is a stranger and get a misdemeanor beef for it; and you could still own a firearm. I think that the current effort is to attempt to roll more and more misdemeanor crimes under Lautenberg; or something like Lautenberg.

Regardless, Lautenberg will be used as the "precedent" under which these continuing usurpations will occur.

February 24, 2009, 10:22 PM	#26
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	I felt like I was reading an English composition paper on sentence structure and parsing with that ruling. __________________ 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

February 25, 2009, 04:14 PM	#28
SPUSCG Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2008 Posts: 3,004	wondering, what exactly does this case mean, that anyone covincted of domestic violence cant own guns? Or certain offenses? Ive heard so many things about the case and was wondering on clarity, ive known several people who have been involved in some BS cases, verbal or alleged assaults that often didn't happen. __________________ Check us out: www.imfdb.org. Fun site for people who love gun movies.

February 25, 2009, 08:41 PM	#29
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	The fallacy in the law has always been that you could beat the livin' c--- out of a woman who is a stranger and get a misdemeanor beef for it; and you could still own a firearm. I think that the current effort is to attempt to roll more and more misdemeanor crimes under Lautenberg; or something like Lautenberg. Regardless, Lautenberg will be used as the "precedent" under which these continuing usurpations will occur. __________________ 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

February 24, 2009, 11:13 PM	#27
Ricky B Senior Member Join Date: November 3, 2002 Posts: 251	Ex post facto was not an issue in the case, only the construction of a poorly worded statute. The 2A and ex post facto may figure in subsequent proceedings, but no ruling was made with respect to those matters in this opinion.