Hand_Rifle_Guy
June 27, 2003, 11:52 PM
...On the grounds that you couldn't just arbitrarily dismiss the statute of limitations. Prosecuting people for crimes far in their past, regardless of their relative nastiness, is not legal. Convicted felons are being released from prison because of this ruling. Hundreds of pending cases are being dropped. People who have pled guilty but haven't been sentenced yet are going scot free. Kaliforny expects most of the cases against the "Evil Child-molesting Priests" are going to evaporate, DESPITE independent corroborating evidence. 15 years of space makes it ok, I guess. :rolleyes:
Additionally, we already have this thing called "ex post facto" prosecution prohibition.
So where does this leave the Lautenberg act? That idiotic law cost a lot of good cops their jobs at the very LEAST, never mind the rest of the "lose your rights over a misdemeanor" bit for the rest of us ordinary peons. An attempt was made to provide exception for past events, even as a LEO-only provision, but that was knocked down. Anyone with ANY sort of "domestic violence" conviction, NO MATTER HOW OLD, lost their 2nd Ammendment rights.
That strikes me as about as "ex post facto" as one can get, but that's been discussed here. I don't think anyone here really likes the Lautenberg act.
Could someone challenge it on the statute of limitations grounds that just freed a bunch of convicted SEX OFFENDERS? These people won't even be felons anymore. If the SCOTUS can let THAT fly, how can they justify suspending rights for other types of crimes, even admittedly less criminal acts like misdemeanors?
Could this disagreeable ruling have positive benefits for the fire-arms community?
Edit to make thread title more informative.
Additionally, we already have this thing called "ex post facto" prosecution prohibition.
So where does this leave the Lautenberg act? That idiotic law cost a lot of good cops their jobs at the very LEAST, never mind the rest of the "lose your rights over a misdemeanor" bit for the rest of us ordinary peons. An attempt was made to provide exception for past events, even as a LEO-only provision, but that was knocked down. Anyone with ANY sort of "domestic violence" conviction, NO MATTER HOW OLD, lost their 2nd Ammendment rights.
That strikes me as about as "ex post facto" as one can get, but that's been discussed here. I don't think anyone here really likes the Lautenberg act.
Could someone challenge it on the statute of limitations grounds that just freed a bunch of convicted SEX OFFENDERS? These people won't even be felons anymore. If the SCOTUS can let THAT fly, how can they justify suspending rights for other types of crimes, even admittedly less criminal acts like misdemeanors?
Could this disagreeable ruling have positive benefits for the fire-arms community?
Edit to make thread title more informative.