Lautenberg ok by SCOTUS

[greycar]

Gun-control advocates buoyed by Supreme Court ruling on firearms

By Reid Wilson

Posted: 02/24/09 08:41 PM [ET]
In its first major ruling on gun rights following a sweeping decision that largely defined the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday offered a hopeful sign to gun control advocates by upholding a ban on some gun ownership rights.


The seven to two majority opinion, authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upheld a 1996 amendment that prevents those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from owning firearms.


The Supreme Court ruled a challenge the Bush administration made to a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the so-called Lautenberg Amendment. The Fourth Circuit interpreted the Lautenberg amendment narrowly, and the ruling would have greatly expanded the ability of domestic abusers to own weapons.


Gun control advocates hailed the ruling as a good sign following the Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 decision that defined the Second Amendment as covering an individual's right to possess weapons. That decision was the first time the Court had ever ruled so broadly on gun rights.


But the Heller ruling suggested that some reasonable restrictions to gun ownership would be allowed. "That's a good sign that Heller is the limited ruling we thought it was," said Daniel Vice, a senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


“Today, the Supreme Court sided with abused women and children and against the gun lobby,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a gun control advocate and the author of the original amendment.

“Today's decision means we can continue keeping guns out of dangerous hands and saving innocent lives.”


Gun control advocates spun the decision as a blow to gun rights groups. The National Rifle Association and major gun rights backers in Congress did not immediately comment for this story.


The Brady Center and more than a dozen law enforcement organizations submitted a friend of the court brief backing the Launtenberg Amendment, citing the hundreds of domestic violence deaths each year they say are prevented by the amendment. Law enforcement organizations also said a significant proportion of police officer deaths each year occur during responses to domestic violence calls.


Ginsburg's majority opinion attracted Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's most centrist member, along with conservatives Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Thomas concurred with all but one section of the ruling.


Justices Antonin Scalia and John Roberts were the lone dissenters.

http://tinyurl.com/d4v9v4 or

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...reme-court-ruling-on-firearms-2009-02-24.html


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

[appraiser]

that sucks

 

[BOBKATT]

“Today, the Supreme Court sided with abused women and children and against the gun lobby,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a gun control advocate and the author of the original amendment.

Unless the abused woman had ever been convicted of a domestic misdemeanor, in which case SCOTUS just took away her ability to defend her and her children ever again. Nice work, shitbags.

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

“Today's decision means we can continue keeping guns out of dangerous hands and saving innocent lives.”

Continue....really? When did they start doing that?

 

[terraformer]

The case is United States v. Hayes.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/07-6081.pdf
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes

 

[terraformer]

So reading this, this was the right decision *in this case*. The problem with the decision is that it opens up the door for abuse of sloppy and poorly written laws. The issue was a guy plead guilty to a misdemeanor DV assault in WVa on his then wife. But the DV assault law in WVa does not require that the two have a relationship. So conceivably prosecutors can start charging people of DV who don't have a relationship and now a simple assault charge is magically a DV charge. Then all of the enhancements that come with a DV charge are then applied when the domestic part of the crime never existed.
Basically congress was lazy, assumed that all DV laws specified a domestic relationship so never specified that themselves and the result is in WVa at least, you have an overreaching law that can be abused. It will take the WVa legislature to fix this.

 

[DickWanner]

the ruling would have greatly expanded the ability of domestic abusers to legally own weapons.

Fixed it.

citing the hundreds of domestic violence deaths each year they say are prevented by the amendment.

Bullshit, utter bullshit.

 

[rwl1955]

Lautenberg

Fixed it.




Bullshit, utter bullshit.

********
I hate Lautenberg. I have Soldiers who can`t be armed because some douche bag got a bullshit restraining order against them.

 

[Bob P]

So reading this, this was the right decision *in this case*. The problem with the decision is that it opens up the door for abuse of sloppy and poorly written laws. The issue was a guy plead guilty to a misdemeanor DV assault in WVa on his then wife. But the DV assault law in WVa does not require that the two have a relationship. So conceivably prosecutors can start charging people of DV who don't have a relationship and now a simple assault charge is magically a DV charge. Then all of the enhancements that come with a DV charge are then applied when the domestic part of the crime never existed.
Basically congress was lazy, assumed that all DV laws specified a domestic relationship so never specified that themselves and the result is in WVa at least, you have an overreaching law that can be abused. It will take the WVa legislature to fix this.

Which the WVa legislature should. It's a sloppy law rife with potential for abuse.

I don't like the ruling all that much, but it's in no way the victory the Brady people are trumpeting.

 

[terraformer]

********
I hate Lautenberg. I have Soldiers who can`t be armed because some douche bag got a bullshit restraining order against them.

How does this work? They have a restraining order so they can't be issued service weapons? When the order is lifted, they are good to go though, right? Or does the DoD consider it permanent?

 

[Climbnsink]

********
I hate Lautenberg. I have Soldiers who can`t be armed because some douche bag got a bullshit restraining order against them.

That is astounding.

 

[clinotus]

How does this work? They have a restraining order so they can't be issued service weapons? When the order is lifted, they are good to go though, right? Or does the DoD consider it permanent?

On some applications the questions ask if the applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, convicted of a crime punishable by incarceration by more than one year, or the subject of a domestic violence charge.

In some jurisdictions, checking yes or having any of those occurrences is an automatic disqualification.

Even here in MA, where people take the CWOF over a trail, there was sufficient evidence in the first place..and its a black mark.

 

[clinotus]

Lets all also not forget, that despite the Domestic Violence angle, which is really a non-issue, the owner was a convicted felon.

 

[sig shooter]

“Today's decision means we can continue keeping guns out of dangerous hands and saving innocent lives.”

Fascist Translation- “Today's decision means we can continue keeping guns out of innocent peoples hands and saving criminal lives.”

 

[terraformer]

Lets all also not forget, that despite the Domestic Violence angle, which is really a non-issue, the owner was a convicted felon.

He wasn't a felon, he had a previous msdm DV charge but yeah, hence why I said "in this case". SCOTUS didn't have the balls to let this guy go on this one charge in order to do the right thing and tighten up the law. Only Scalia and Roberts did the right thing. And all that needed to fix the problem was an amendment in the WVa law, and any other affected. But now we have to rely on the good graces of prosecutors and legistraitors all over the country to do the right thing all the time, every time. Yeah, we have seen how that goes.

 

[clinotus]

He wasn't a felon, he had a previous msdm DV charge but yeah, hence why I said "in this case". SCOTUS didn't have the balls to let this guy go on this one charge in order to do the right thing and tighten up the law. Only Scalia and Roberts did the right thing. And all that needed to fix the problem was an amendment in the WVa law, and any other affected. But now we have to rely on the good graces of prosecutors and legistraitors all over the country to do the right thing all the time, every time. Yeah, we have seen how that goes.

He is not a felon per se, but the wording of the law for a Domestic Violence crime, or any crime in which bodily harm is suggested by the use of a deadly weapon or by the attempted use of force; places him in that category.

Since the states cant agree on it, the Fed did and stated those 'crimes' are on the same level as a felony disqualification, for him. I do think the brush is too broad, since it doesnt take into affect that the victim and aggressor even need to be related, but when you look at the initial law that they applied to the DV portion it kind of makes sense. No really winner here.

 

[terraformer]

He is not a felon per se, but the wording of the law for a Domestic Violence crime, or any crime in which bodily harm is suggested by the use of a deadly weapon or by the attempted use of force; places him in that category.

Since the states cant agree on it, the Fed did and stated those 'crimes' are on the same level as a felony disqualification, for him. I do think the brush is too broad, since it doesnt take into affect that the victim and aggressor even need to be related, but when you look at the initial law that they applied to the DV portion it kind of makes sense. No really winner here.

Ah yes, he was prohibited. And this prohibition was the question the courts were dealing with, but considering they found the rifle after a second DV incident 2 years later is all the more evidence this guy was a loser and not an innocent victim of a f'd up legal system. There are or will be innocent victims of this overly broad application, and that is what the supreme court was supposed to have the balls to correct, but failed to do so.

 

[clinotus]

Ah yes, he was prohibited. And this prohibition was the question the courts were dealing with, but considering they found the rifle after a second DV incident 2 years later is all the more evidence this guy was a loser and not an innocent victim of a f'd up legal system. There are or will be innocent victims of this overly broad application, and that is what the supreme court was supposed to have the balls to correct, but failed to do so.

I think you are right on the money, this ruling will affect a lot more people in the long run, more so with the slight affirmation of the non-relation clause. But for the case itself...I hate cases like these. Its just a legal clarification and not a landmark precedent like the Brady Center and other 2A opponents would have you believe. They are winning the PR war and using it to screw the rest of us in the long run.

I would love to see a case move forward to challenge the State and Fed law.

We need a jilted lover to enact it and the 'victim' to have deep pockets.

Trouble is no one wants to touch or take away any laws that touch on Domestic Violence. Its like a third rail in politics.

 

[appraiser]

Here is my objection to Lautenberg.

In Massachusetts for example, a Judge will issue a restraining order at the drop of a hat.

You, as the recipient can go plead your case, but it is pretty futile. Once it is issued, and in some cases after a year it becomes lifetime, there is no legal way to challenge it or get it modified. There is a way but it is so obscure and time consuming and expensive I don't think it has ever been done. IIRC it has to go to the SJC for consideration.

Now here is my gripe... you have not been CONVICTED of anything. You have one party making allegations against another " I'm afraid of him because he said he would kill me if I ever...." is enough to get your 2A rights revoked FOREVER, because even if she retracts the allegations, the CLEO can still argue suitability.

A restraining order is a civil instrument, you are not afforded a trial by a jury of your peers to fight the allegations. A single Judge holds your 2A rights in his/her hands and in 99.999999999% of the cases will grant a 209A(or 208 order as part of a divorce) without blinking.

Yes or no have you stopped beating your wife

 

[cekim]

This was inevitable when Scalia left the door open with "reasonable restrictions" in Heller...

Misdemeanor charges/conviction as a threshold is absurd...

 

[terraformer]

Here is my objection to Lautenberg.

In Massachusetts for example, a Judge will issue a restraining order at the drop of a hat.

You, as the recipient can go plead your case, but it is pretty futile. Once it is issued, and in some cases after a year it becomes lifetime, there is no legal way to challenge it or get it modified. There is a way but it is so obscure and time consuming and expensive I don't think it has ever been done. IIRC it has to go to the SJC for consideration.

Now here is my gripe... you have not been CONVICTED of anything. You have one party making allegations against another " I'm afraid of him because he said he would kill me if I ever...." is enough to get your 2A rights revoked FOREVER, because even if she retracts the allegations, the CLEO can still argue suitability.

A restraining order is a civil instrument, you are not afforded a trial by a jury of your peers to fight the allegations. A single Judge holds your 2A rights in his/her hands and in 99.999999999% of the cases will grant a 209A(or 208 order as part of a divorce) without blinking.

Yes or no have you stopped beating your wife

Generally all valid gripes, and frankly a travesty of the judicial system in this country. But as Clinotus pointed out, this is not the huge win the Brady bunch are calling it. It is also not a judgement of the entire lautenberg amendment. It was a small part of the overall DV enhancements and one that applied only to those who have been convicted of something criminal. Your gripes are about the restrictions that are put in place for civil matters without any due process.

There will come a time when someone falsely accused tries to get their rights back and has to take it to the supremes. But if that happens you need to have incorporation first (although lautenberg is fed, it relies on state courts) and you better pray you have a likable and truly innocent defendant. And if it goes like it should, then most of the truly abhorrent parts of lautenberg will have to get rewritten with due process, along with those other antiquated constitutional protections, and made a purview of the criminal system.

Hell, the only reason this has not come up yet is guns are the only right removed by the government because of these 208/9s. All the other things you lose, private jobs where they find out, kids, etc are not rights. Hell, I believe the government will still hire you with a 209 over your head. F'n nuts.

 

[Bill Nance]

This is a very VERY narrow ruling and not one that actually affects firearms rights or in any way takes away from Heller.

The ruling was about whether or not "Domestic Violence" meant charges relating TO it, or the specific charge. Granted Ginsburg (cough spit) made a big deal about protecting women, but that doesn't mean much WRT the ruling.

All it was was a clarification about the intent of congress when they passed the law. The grabbers can crow all they want to, it doesn't actually have any meaning. Lautenburg stinks to high heaven, but this ruling didn't address the 2nd amendment aspects of the law in any way.

 

[cekim]

This is a very VERY narrow ruling...
...
The ruling was about whether or not "Domestic Violence" meant charges relating TO it, or the specific charge.

Yes, but like many such rulings it expands the "reasonable restrictions" just a little bit further... So that the next step is that much closer...

In this case to MISDEMEANOR charges. Not felony...

 

[drgrant]

Lautenberg SUCKS.

Even if you agree with its basic premise (that spousal abusers shouldn't have firearms) most don't understand that in some states petty bullshit between a husband and wife (or domestic partners) can trigger Lautenberg, which is a pretty dangerous concept.

IIRC the NRA highlighted this awhile ago... a woman involved in a patently minor incident was convicted under a mandatory DV law in her state, and became barred from owning firearms, because she tore the pocket of the guy's pants or some stupid crap like that. She didn't even serve jail
time, and lost her gun rights for the rest of her life over a petty incident.

For example, let's say some guy's wife slaps him in the face during an argument and a cop sees it, and then arrests her under the state's manadatory DV law... despite the protests of the husband. What kind of messed up justice is that?

One thing that really pisses me off is that the feds had a system of disability relief from lautenberg/GCA, but congress refuses to fund it, so the only
way anyone can ever get their rights restored after such an incident is via extroardinary measures like a full pardon, etc.

There are likely thousands of american citizens who are no real threat to society who are being denied their constitutional rights by the provisions
in GCA-68, and are essentially offered zero chance at regaining them.

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

Its just a legal clarification and not a landmark precedent like the Brady Center and other 2A opponents would have you believe.

It is just a matter of what side of the fence you are on.

Much like some here have done with Heller. People here attempt to apply Heller in every incident that comes up when in reality Heller will most likely have little impact on Ma.

 

[drgrant]

How does this work? They have a restraining order so they can't be issued service weapons? When the order is lifted, they are good to go though, right? Or does the DoD consider it permanent?

IIRC GCA68/Federal law has a bunch of exemptions built into it for Military/LE service.

ETA: This is why, in many states (MA included) with certain conditions, a LEO with a 209A on his head can still
carry a gun while on duty.

-Mike

 

[Bill Nance]

Yes, but like many such rulings it expands the "reasonable restrictions" just a little bit further... So that the next step is that much closer...

In this case to MISDEMEANOR charges. Not felony...

Lautenberg is a TERRIBLE law. But it wasn't addressed AT ALL by this ruling. All the ruling did was clarify the intent of the original law.

"Roberts, joined by Scalia, dissents, going for (a). It's a straight statutory matter, Second Amendment neither briefed nor mentioned in either opinion."

-Thats from David Hardy, whom you may have heard of.

Again, this ruling did not even address 2A in any way, shape or form. Nor did it uphold the constitutionality of Lautenberg. It was strictly a narrow ruling on whether or not the application in a particular case was invalid due to wording and vagueness.

The gun grabbers are blowing smoke like they always do, claiming to be "protecting" everyone. But nothing substantial has changed.

 

[terraformer]

IIRC GCA68/Federal law has a bunch of exemptions built into it for Military/LE service.

I was pretty much driving there with my questions. Not knowing what DoD policy is on the matter conjoined with my socratic tendencies I asked the relevant questions instead of straight up calling BS. I knew there were all sorts of "Only Ones" exemptions. I suspected the poster was mistaking local/unit policy for legal restrictions. Who knows, maybe he will chime in and clarify what is driving that statement.

 

[Bob P]

It is just a matter of what side of the fence you are on.

Much like some here have done with Heller. People here attempt to apply Heller in every incident that comes up when in reality Heller will most likely have little impact on Ma.

Agree in principle, disagree in practice. Heller puts a stake in the 'collective right' argument which is much more significant then Lautenberg.

 

[Half Cocked]

Agree in principle, disagree in practice. Heller puts a stake in the 'collective right' argument which is much more significant then Lautenberg.

Agreed.....my statement was more about principle and human nature.