Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
Well, almost no one in my social class has. Things may be different up where you are.
Lautenburg amendment upheld.
- Thread starter Hanafuda
- Start date
- Status
Well, almost no one in my social class has. Things may be different up where you are.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Pretty much. Folks seem to need a way to vent, and this is one of 'em.
I would suggest that everyone that thinks that Lautenberg is a steaming pile of feces actually invest some time in getting their local elected officials to address the way that domestic violence laws are written and enforced. Anything less is, well, wasted energy and useless spew.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Husker, many regular folks around here have a misdemeanor conviction. Anything from criminal speed, to operating after suspension, to operating under the influence, to petty theft, to disorderly conduct, to drinking in public, to public indecency, to drug possession, to "trafficking in dangerous knives," to carrying a concealed weapon.
rugerman07
Member
No, I'm saying no misdemeanor conviction of any kind should ever rob you of your 2A rights.
My advice is
Keep a book and write down how each argument plays out (along with a date)
In the unfortunate event you have to defend yourself, this book shows the kind of person you are and the kind of person your partner is. Who escalates the situation…Who is violent….And how one acts
Duke you are right.
Keep a book and write down how each argument plays out (along with a date)
In the unfortunate event you have to defend yourself, this book shows the kind of person you are and the kind of person your partner is. Who escalates the situation…Who is violent….And how one acts
Duke you are right.
rbernie
Contributing Member
The problem with this approach is that they just redefine the behaviors that they wish to sanction into felonies.
You keep approaching this from the RKBA perspective. Loss of RKBA rights is but one end result of our current domestic violence laws. How about doing a root cause analysis and figuring out how to change the outcome by changing the root cause?
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
There is definitely a disturbing trend in this country towards turning minor things into felonies:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/04/prosecutor-as-jihadist-andrew-thomas-vs.html
Husker_Fan
Member
StoPPeR,
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.
I have said I don't like the Lautenberg Amendment for several reasons. I just happen to think I should read Supreme Court opinions before screaming that the RKBA is being destroyed.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.
I have said I don't like the Lautenberg Amendment for several reasons. I just happen to think I should read Supreme Court opinions before screaming that the RKBA is being destroyed.
In the example of my friend who cannot get a CCL the law took the stance not of "unlawfully and intentionally causes physical harm to his or her family or household member", but the stance of
"unlawfully commits an act which places his or her family or household member in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury".
All it takes is for your wife, girlfriend, live-in sextoy, once ex-girlfriend, once temporary roomate, former one-night-stand, etc to say that she was in fear of your actions to the police with some crying and you have now "placed your household member in reasonable apprehension of immediately recieving a violent injury" according to the law.
The law needs to be enforced on a case by case basis, also alot of LEOs got around this law, they rode a desk for a few weeks to a month or so then went right back to walking the beat, not many got fired. Also PFAs and their enforcement are a joke, Ive seen LEOs that have them placed against them working armed within easy reach of the person who placed the PFA against them. The laws seem to be enforced in favor of some people like any law is, and not in favor of others all of the time.
"unlawfully commits an act which places his or her family or household member in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury".
All it takes is for your wife, girlfriend, live-in sextoy, once ex-girlfriend, once temporary roomate, former one-night-stand, etc to say that she was in fear of your actions to the police with some crying and you have now "placed your household member in reasonable apprehension of immediately recieving a violent injury" according to the law.
The law needs to be enforced on a case by case basis, also alot of LEOs got around this law, they rode a desk for a few weeks to a month or so then went right back to walking the beat, not many got fired. Also PFAs and their enforcement are a joke, Ive seen LEOs that have them placed against them working armed within easy reach of the person who placed the PFA against them. The laws seem to be enforced in favor of some people like any law is, and not in favor of others all of the time.
This is but one of the responses that is a bit alarmist and is missing one point. The misdemeanor must be punishable of UP TO ONE YEAR IN PRISON. Most fourth degree or verbal types of assault don't carry anything close to that term. In most states you would actually have to hit her to get a qualifying charge under lautenburg.
Its looks like I have to correct myself. I was going by the back of the ATF form (the asterisk from block 11(?)) where is states the conviction must be punishable of up to a year. The amendment itself does not say that.
here's my view.
This decision isn't really gun related.
Prosecutors have a large amount of leeway to charge or not charge, and what to charge.
Lets say a guy rolls through a stopsign, has an open bottle of booze in his car, and has been drinking, no seat-belt, and blows a .08 in a state where .08 is all that is needed, but staggering around because he was a 21 year old virginal boy going to some bible college who had 2 beers at his uncle's bbq.
The prosecutor decides to just speed manners along, and drops the seat belt, and simply charges him with open container + reckless driving. No seatbelt charge, no drunk driving charge, etc etc.
Later on a new law comes about that says if you have ever been convicted of a DWI you can't own a car, or drive a car.
This guy may well think 'hey, I pled this case down to 'open container' hence the law doesn't apply to me!
That is what happened to this gun owner. He was convicted of Assault.
To retroactively look at the details of the crime and reclaissify it based on details not in dispute so it can be shoe-horned into another law is bogus.
This decision isn't really gun related.
Prosecutors have a large amount of leeway to charge or not charge, and what to charge.
Lets say a guy rolls through a stopsign, has an open bottle of booze in his car, and has been drinking, no seat-belt, and blows a .08 in a state where .08 is all that is needed, but staggering around because he was a 21 year old virginal boy going to some bible college who had 2 beers at his uncle's bbq.
The prosecutor decides to just speed manners along, and drops the seat belt, and simply charges him with open container + reckless driving. No seatbelt charge, no drunk driving charge, etc etc.
Later on a new law comes about that says if you have ever been convicted of a DWI you can't own a car, or drive a car.
This guy may well think 'hey, I pled this case down to 'open container' hence the law doesn't apply to me!
That is what happened to this gun owner. He was convicted of Assault.
To retroactively look at the details of the crime and reclaissify it based on details not in dispute so it can be shoe-horned into another law is bogus.
rbernie
Contributing Member
And Husker Fan wins the thread!
Husker_Fan
Member
akodo,
I don't think that is correct. For Lautenberg to apply and a person loose their gun rights, the person must have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime that includes, in the statutory definition of the crime, "the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon." In your senario, the guy was never convicted of DWI. Under Lautenberg, it does not matter what he could have been convicted of, it is what he is convicted of, either by a judge, jury, or his own guilty plea.
And to be clear, Hayes was convicted of battery, not simple assault. here is the definition of the crime he was convicted of (taken from footnote 1 of the Supreme Court's opinion).
West Virginia’s battery statute provides: “[A]ny person [who] unlawfully and intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another or unlawfully and intentionally causes physical harm to another person, . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” W. Va. Code Ann. §61–2–9(c) (Lexis 2005).
Whatever I might think of the usefulness of the Lautenberg amendment, the decision is not inching towards taking away the rights of anyone who ever received a ticket for jaywalking.
P.S. Thanks rbernie.
I don't think that is correct. For Lautenberg to apply and a person loose their gun rights, the person must have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime that includes, in the statutory definition of the crime, "the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon." In your senario, the guy was never convicted of DWI. Under Lautenberg, it does not matter what he could have been convicted of, it is what he is convicted of, either by a judge, jury, or his own guilty plea.
And to be clear, Hayes was convicted of battery, not simple assault. here is the definition of the crime he was convicted of (taken from footnote 1 of the Supreme Court's opinion).
West Virginia’s battery statute provides: “[A]ny person [who] unlawfully and intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another or unlawfully and intentionally causes physical harm to another person, . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” W. Va. Code Ann. §61–2–9(c) (Lexis 2005).
Whatever I might think of the usefulness of the Lautenberg amendment, the decision is not inching towards taking away the rights of anyone who ever received a ticket for jaywalking.
P.S. Thanks rbernie.
rugerman07
Member
Hayes was convicted of Battery. The SCOTUS ruled that the gun ban can be under a generic law against the use of force, it doesn't have to state Domestic Violence. So what happens if someone convicted of Battery go's to buy a gun? Will they be denied? Will they be red flagged by NICS and have the-burden-of-proof that their Battery conviction was not against a family member or live in lover? The way I read it is, this SCOTUS ruling will open doors to other misdemeanor convictions.
Bookworm
Member
This case when I read about had me infuriated. Was it not enough that most of the veterans serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, involved in a shooting or seeing their friends shot got counseling and then were denied their 2nd amendment rights?
Now we're creeping into federal infringment on state level misdemeanors. A guy has his grandfather's rifle, unloaded, as a keepsake. A damn good example of an American value, then gets popped and convicted of a felony for a law he had no idea he was breaking? This is utter BS.
Where is Ron Paul and Bob Barr when we need them? This is enough with the feds gone wild. The states need to put these guys in their place and say "enough, we're not enforcing this unconstitutional law, nor allowing any feds in our state to do so".
Now we're creeping into federal infringment on state level misdemeanors. A guy has his grandfather's rifle, unloaded, as a keepsake. A damn good example of an American value, then gets popped and convicted of a felony for a law he had no idea he was breaking? This is utter BS.
Where is Ron Paul and Bob Barr when we need them? This is enough with the feds gone wild. The states need to put these guys in their place and say "enough, we're not enforcing this unconstitutional law, nor allowing any feds in our state to do so".
- Status
