Lautenburg - Never over-turned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.

With the recent February 24th 2009, 7-2 SCOTUS decision on the Lautenburg Amendment, does that mean that this law will never be over-turned?


.
 
No, it means that certain criminal convictions which the 4th Circuit had treated as not implicated by Lautenberg are in fact implicated everywhere in America by Lautenberg. The Constitutionality of Lautenberg was not at issue (maybe it should have been, but it wasn't). Even if not struck down, Lautenberg could be repealed or, more likely, modified someday by legislative action to be less draconian.
 
usmarine:

What the Duke said....

Essentially, the Court decided that Lautenberg applied to convictions obtained under statutes that weren't explicitly called "Domestic Violence". Apparently a few states didn't call some offenses that, even though they were....

In short, beating up a neighbor, and taking a conviction for "battery" probably isn't DV, but taking the same conviction for battery after beating up your wife IS.... Some prosecutor decided to run that way, for whatever reason, and was questioned on it, making it's way up the line....

Would have been nice if the Supremes had rejected the whole thing (ex-post-facto, at least), but they upheld it on similar grounds a while back if I understand it correctly, and weren't asked this time.

(Don't forget that the Court doesn't necessarily rule on things that aren't asked about....)

Regards,
 
Until a corpus of good case law has built up on 2A, post Heller, individual right, Keep AND Bear etc then the SC is not going to even sniff at Lautenberg.

As/If/When 2A gets incorporated AND the requisite level of scrutiny is laid out only then can realistic challenges be drafted.

To be honest and it's my opinion only, we have a better chance at "shall issue" CCW in New Jersey than getting Lautenberg completely thrown out.

The issue is just too emotional and too contentious, you can hear the wails now, "You want to arm WIFE BEATERS !!!!!!"

A more realistic chance is to get Lautenberg hedged with a higher level of scrutiny, automatic expiry of the prohibition after a set period of time unless explicitly restarted after judicial review etc. These are arguably "reasonable" in that it puts 2A on a more equitable level as other BoR amendments and provides a path that matches "risk" and "right" more closely.
 
everallm:

+1....

It's my understanding that Lautenberg didn't expect the thing to pass, either....

This came together as a knee-jerk during a period when DV was in the public eye, and the urge to "Do Something!" was stronger than "read the law". Kinda like the Porkulus..... :(

It appears that the legislators were blissfully unaware that the retroactive nature of the law would snare a lot of people who simply took the misdemeanor conviction. They paid a small fine and went along with their lives, because of their lawyer's advice, or just for convenience, to get it over with.

Ohio's CHL law has two of those - older misdemeanor DV or drug violations are a lockout. Until a little while ago, it was basically permanent, but getting the conviction sealed is now a way around. You can, btw, generally get a DV conviction sealed anywhere, but it's not easy.

What bothers me is that the USSC apparently had a chance before to void this, and didn't....

Regards,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top