Lautenburg and Heller

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.
Just saw this article on the effects of Heller.


How does what the Judge say about Heller not apply to Lautenburg?



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/17bar.html?_r=1&hp


There is one arguable exception to this trend. Two judges have struck down a part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named after the murdered son of John Walsh, the host of the television show “America’s Most Wanted.” The act says that people accused of child pornography offenses must be prohibited from possessing guns while they await trial.

That provision may well have been unconstitutional as a matter of due process even before Heller, as it seems to impose a punishment before conviction. But two courts have struck down the provision based partly on the fact that a fundamental constitutional right is at stake.

“A year ago, I might well have taken for granted the authority of Congress to require that a person charged with a crime be prohibited from possessing a firearm,” Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV of the Federal District Court in Manhattan wrote in December. Heller changed that, he said.

“The right to possess a firearm is constitutionally protected,” Judge Francis wrote. “There is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.”


.
 
IMO, you have raised an important construction of a pro-gun constitutional argument for striking down Lautenberg.

Now, let's see what some of our resident legal scholars have to say....

Jim H.
 
How does what the Judge say about Heller not apply to Lautenburg?
As far as I could tell - the article is stating that confiscation of firearms after an an arrest but prior to conviction is a violation of due process - a violation made clearer by Heller perhaps, but not contingent upon Heller.

Confiscation as a result of the Lautenberg Amendment requires a conviction of Domestic Violence and is therefore not denying due process to a gunowner.
 
Lautenberg also applies to those currently subject to a Protection From Abuse Order, routinely granted in connection with divorces and to the occasional psycho drama queen. THAT part of Lautenberg may be vulnerable under the reasoning above.
 
Confiscation as a result of the Lautenberg Amendment requires a conviction of Domestic Violence and is therefore not denying due process to a gunowner.

Not always. Part of Lautenberg says that you lose your gun rights if someone just files a restraining order against you.
 
.
A police officer recently got fired because his significant other had an OFP against him.



Being an officer it's easy for the petitioner to go, "I'm fearful of him, he's a policeman." Or, "I'm fearful of him because he has a gun."



And then, there goes your job.



If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top