Heller and Lautenberg Act - Repeal

[usmarine0352_2005]

Now that Heller is decided, what is the chance of repealing the Lautenberg Amendment?


The Lautenberg Amendment: The Act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence, or who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. The Act also makes it unlawful to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such person.


As unpopular as it may be for a politician to reapeal an act that involves Domestic Abuse or the supposed act of Domestic Abuse, it should be done, since people's rights may be violated without due process.

 

[schlumper]

It is going to the Supreme court in the next session.
U.S. vs. Hayes
Docket 07-608
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004711.php

 

[Henry Bowman]

Good point, schlumper. But Hayes could be decided on more narrow grounds and not directly address the Constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment. They could decide that the conviction must have the "domestic" element in it and affirm the 4th Circuit without considering the 2A at all.

 

[madmike]

As I read Heller, Lautenberg is a dead issue. You have a right to own a gun, unless stripped of the right by trial.

Of course, Laughtenberg violates ex post facto and equal protection anyway. Everyone who voted for it should be tried for treason and hanged from a lamppost.

Not that I have a bias or anything.

 

[esq_stu]

The reversal by the 4th Circuit is not based on the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court will probably not even consider the 2nd Amendment or Heller.

That would be a shame, because the 4th Circuit, based on a 1974 case (holding that the federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms by convicted felons was constitutional) held until last Thursday that the 2nd Amendment was a collective right.

But the Supreme court was probably not even presented with the 2nd Amendment as an issue.

OTOH, it may be sympathetic to Hayes because of it's holding in Heller. That may be worth something.

 

[LB7_Driver]

Schlumper, Mr. Bowman,
U.S. vs. Hayes looks like a different question than being asked in this thread.

Hays plead guilty to and was convicted of general battery, not a crime of domestic violence. The SCOTUS decision could easily be decided on that point alone, letting the Lautenberg amendment stand while being fund not guilty of violating Lautenburg.

Given the narrow decisions of the SCOTUS in the past, I find that most likely.

I think a simple & direct challenge to the Lautenburg amendment is needed to get a decision on it.

I find it repugnant that one of our clearly enumerated rights is being violated by committing a mere misdemeanor, without even getting into the ex-post-facto issue!

 

[Henry Bowman]

Given the narrow decisions of the SCOTUS in the past, I find that most likely.

I agree.

I think a simple & direct challenge to the Lautenburg amendment is needed to get a decision on it.

I find it repugnant that one of our clearly enumerated rights is being violated by committing a mere misdemeanor, without even getting into the ex-post-facto issue!

Some state legislatures are likely to respond by making all domestic violence offenses felonies.


In any event, apart from the ex post facto aspect, if the legislature can Constitutionally ban possession by a felon, why not also for certain misdemeanors?

 

[LB7_Driver]

...if the legislature can Constitutionally ban possession by a felon, why not also for certain misdemeanors?

My opinion is they do not have that authority. So long as the offender has been released from prison and has not agreed to a restricted set of rights while on probation, they are free and full citizens again.

If the person is too damn dangerous to own a gun, they need to be in prison, or dead.
This means that once a felon has done the time and is released, then all rights shall be restored.

Unfortunatly, this is not the case. Being a felon, even for minor tax evasion, means that basic human rights are stripped for life.

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

Of course, Laughtenberg violates ex post facto and equal protection anyway. Everyone who voted for it should be tried for treason and hanged from a lamppost.

You see clearly, Mr. Williamson.

 

[Rich K]

"As I read Heller, Lautenberg is a dead issue. You have a right to own a gun, unless stripped of the right by trial.

Of course, Laughtenberg violates ex post facto and equal protection anyway. Everyone who voted for it should be tried for treason and hanged from a lamppost.

Not that I have a bias or anything"

I have the same bias.

 

[Henry Bowman]

My opinion is they do not have that authority. So long as the offender has been released from prison and has not agreed to a restricted set of rights while on probation, they are free and full citizens again.

I agree. But the Heller decision endorced the ban on possession by a felon in dicta. I mean: "if the legislature can Constitutionally ban possession by a felon, why not [Constitutionally] also for certain misdemeanors?"

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Lautenberg should be overturned as unconstitutional. If the offense was serious enough to deny a person's basic constitutional rights, it should be a felony. Constitutional rights should NEVER be denied for misdemeanors. Read your Law Dictionary

...a lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year. Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies, which can be punished by a state prison term.

So, bad behavior, which might be punished by a fifty dollar fine can cause the denial of your basic constitutional rights forever?

As it stands right now, a simple slap across the face during an argument over a wife's new shoes, baby diapers, or cold dinner is enough to deny the offender his basic, constitutional, 2nd amendment rights forever.

What if it is the woman who slaps the man in a fit of rage? Same offense, same weight under the (Lautenberg) law, she is denied the means of protecting herself forever...sound fair? Does it sound right? Does it sound morally correct? Let me try one more...Does it sound reasonable?

All the above having been said, I believe this case will be decided based on the nature of the charge to which Mr. Hayes pleaded guilty. That charge was not something like "domestic battery" it was "simple battery". So this may be a chance missed to overturn Lautenberg. We'll see soon enough.

 

[LB7_Driver]

"if the legislature can Constitutionally ban possession by a felon, why not [Constitutionally] also for certain misdemeanors?"

The government has the POWER to do as it pleases (though not the authority). Using any power that is not authorized is an abuse of power.

So, in short:
The government can do anything it wants and call it constitutional so long as we allow it.

Heck... look how the SCOTUS decided about using eminent domain for commercial (monetary) gain recently!

 

[k_dawg]

Removal of certain rights for a felon is an explicit power of the gov't.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Removal of certain rights for a felon is an explicit power of the gov't.

True, but Lautenberg covers more then that:


The Lautenberg Amendment: The Act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence, or who is under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. The Act also makes it unlawful to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such person.


.

 

[AndyC]

I'm concerned about those people I hear of who have merely been accused, let alone convicted of domestic violence, who lose their gun-rights.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I'm concerned about those people I hear of who have merely been accused, let alone convicted of domestic violence, who lose their gun-rights.

That's why the Lautenberg Amendment is bad, you don't need to be convicted of Domestic abuse to lose your rights, you just need to be accused, thus the restraining order going against you.


.

 

[Baldy518]

Lautenberg should be impeached anyway

As I recall, Sen. Lautenberg was retired. When a guy running for his current office got into some kind of legal trouble, Old Frank got back into the mix. As I remember it, his paperwork was handed in past the deadline, but they let him run anyway! Sounds just like New Jersey politics (Poly-Ticks)(Many Blood-suckers)
Please correct me if I am mis-informed, but this is they way my feeble memory recalls the situation.

 

[LAR-15]

'Torch' Torricelli was going to lose and the New Jersey Democrat machine stepped in and replaced him with Lautenberg.

Doug Forrester should be the senator from NJ, NOT Frank!

 

[egnilk66]

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57925

 

[bigjohnson]

Unfortunately, there is no way on God's green earth that the congress is going to repeal the Lautenberg amendment. Can you imagine the uproar that the anti-gun leftists would create if the congress were to consider letting "wife beaters" own firearms? And by the way, that's just the type of language they will use. It doesn't matter that some poor dumb slob shoved his girlfriend (after she shoved him) and was seen doing it by the cops (who didn't see her shove him). He's a "wife beater", and should not own a gun.

The congress won't touch that one with a ten-foot pole.

 

[egnilk66]

Well, that's the same thing some people said about slavery....and they got rid of that.


NOTHING will ever happen unless the people rise up or raise their voices. This "amendment" has thousands of people being affected by it's unintended consquences (or very intended).


http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57925

 

[bigjohnson]

Okay. Go ahead and try. You'll be beating your head against a wall for a long time on this one, though. And be ready to hear this from your congressman: "You want me to vote in favor of giving guns to wife beaters? No way!"
As for slavery, it wasn't the congress that got rid of that. 625,000 Americans died in the war that it took to get rid of slavery.

 

[SomeKid]

ProRifleman, you don't even need to slap. Harsh words is more than enough to be considered DV.

You should see the way they treat DV around college campuses. They quite literally train girls to be victims.

 

[gc70]

...if the legislature can Constitutionally ban possession by a felon, why not also for certain misdemeanors?

In its former effective status as a privilege granted by government, gun ownership or possession could be banned, even for misdemeanors, in much the same way that a driver's license can be revoked for amassing too many violation points. Heller moved gun ownership and possession from its former status as privilege to a fundamental Constitutional right.

If the courts allow one fundamental Constitutional right to be stripped away on the basis of a misdemeanor conviction, what would preclude other fundamental Constitutional rights from being treated similarly? Unless the courts build a mountain of rationalization to differentiate the 2nd Amendment, it will have to be accorded the same type of treatment as other fundamental Constitutional rights. Can you imagine the courts even considering stripping a person's 4th Amendment rights over a misdemeanor? It will take a while to settle in, but the 2nd is now in an exclusive and well protected club.