Supreme Court Grants Cert on Lautenberg

Status
Not open for further replies.
The legal conniptions they invent to justify it will be interesting.
 
So what does this mean from a practical standpoint in relation to how it will effect the public, and if this changes anything, what process will it go through, and how long might it take?
 
Found this:

In 2001, Castleman pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault (TN Code 39-13-111(b) under an indictment that asserted that he “did intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to [the mother of his child].” Seven years later, federal agents discovered that Castleman and his wife were buying firearms from dealers and selling them on the black market. Under the scheme, Castleman’s wife purchased firearms, allegedly lied on federal firearms paperwork by stating that she was the actual buyer of the firearms, and turned the firearms over to her husband, who was legally prohibited from purchasing firearms because of his domestic assault conviction. Castleman was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). The district court dismissed those counts, reasoning that Castleman’s misdemeanor domestic assault conviction did not qualify as a domestic violence crime requiring the “use or attempted use of physical force.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Tennessee assault statute does not define “serious bodily injury” to require any particular degree of contact.


http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/10-5912/10-5912-2012-09-19.html
 
.

This sounds like it's a poor case. Could this actually hurt our chances of prevailing?



What do you think?
.
 
This case has nothing to do with the 2A or with the constitutionality of the Lautenberg amendment. It is simply a case involving the statutory interpretation of the language used in the Lautenberg amendment and the applicable TN statute. In short, the case involves whether the crime that the defendant was previously convicted of involved a sufficient amount of physical force to qualify as a "violent" misdemeanor domestic assault.
 
Crappy test case for Lautenberg.

What we really need is a Soldier who lost his rights and his career because of a benign argument and misdemeanor DV conviction. There are plenty of those around.
 
you rarely get a choice on what cases get heard. you take what you can get.

In any case this seems more likely to be a case where they define what a poorly written law actually means rather than a 2A case.
 
Am I missing something? It looks to me that Castleman has won so far anf the writ was applied for by the prosecution. In that case, the prosecution must feel either very strongly or desparate?
 
Am I missing something? It looks to me that Castleman has won so far anf the writ was applied for by the prosecution. In that case, the prosecution must feel either very strongly or desparate?
that would appear to be the case. I am not sure what the government hopes to accomplish by filing for cert. OTOH, the court did accept the case which might mean they think there is potentially a flaw in the lower courts' rulings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top