Heller Vs. Lautenberg Amendment

[canopy2k]

The 2A is now affirmed as an Individual RIGHT.

Can your civil rights be taken away as a result of a misdemeanor conviction?

c2k

 

[Z-Michigan]

I'm sure there will be a test case shortly. My first thought is that they can't, although that might change if there is a showing of a continuing threat from the convicted person.

 

[brighamr]

The decision specifically states that it does not address felons, mentally ill, et. al.

I didn't see misdemeanor though!

 

[canopy2k]

Right.. Is there ANY other Right that can be taken away from you when you commit a misdemeanor? Can you think of any? I can't...

c2k

 

[ozwyn]

I think there is a good shot at this as a cruel and unusual punsihment as the misdemeandor equates to a lifetime ban.

Find a decorated police officer who lost his job due to a domestic disturbance misdemeanor.

icing on the cake - FOP and other police advocate/union groups fighting for gun rights

 

[Bubbles]

Find a decorated police officer who lost his job due to a domestic disturbance misdemeanor.

Didn't this also affect folks in the military?

 

[Mike OTDP]

It did.

This one is going to be very interesting, because there are two areas.

The first is whether or not a person convicted of a misdemeanor can be stripped of an enumerated civil right. This could go either way.

The second is whether or not a person can be stripped of arms based purely on a protective order. I think this goes down hard. If nothing else, a requirement for a full hearing will be levied...a hearing at which both parties must be present, and of which adequate notice must be given. Which means that the bureaucratic burden becomes quite heavy.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Find a decorated police officer who lost his job due to a domestic disturbance misdemeanor.

icing on the cake - FOP and other police advocate/union groups fighting for gun rights

Sure...let him scream..."But...but I'm special!!"

The National F.O.P. has supported more gun control since before the Clinton years

 

[rugerman07]

My personal opinion is.....No misdemeanor conviction of any type should strip you of your constitutional right to own guns. However, this issue was not mentioned in Heller vs D.C. . It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[SageMonkey]

Don't Lautenberg and other 4473 denials of our rights strip rights soley based upon accusations without any decision of guilt or mental incompetence being reached in court?

Eg, as I understand it Lautenberg makes someone subject to a mere restraining order a prohibited person. Also, aren't those merely under indictment for a felony also stripped of their RKBA?

 

[rugerman07]

Lautenberg strips anyone convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence their constitutional right to own firearms. Any physical confrontation with a family member will cost you your gun rights.

You can thank democratic senator, Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, for this unconstitutional anti-gun law.

 

[Master Blaster]

Under the lausenberg amendment and under many states laws all a woman has to do is call the police or go into family court and say " he hit me or he threatened me, or he scares me, and the judge grants a temporary restraining order against the man. The police then go to the home of the "he" and confiscate all firearms and weapons!! No evidence or hearing required till later when the man / perp comes into court to contest. at that point the restraining order is vacated or made permanent. If its vacated the "he" gets his guns back eventually, maybe. You dont even have to be convicted or tried for anything. Your right to due process is suspended for safety reasons.

This happened to the police chief of Elsmere Delaware when his x-wife accused him of hitting her, it was a false accusation, but he lost his service weapon for a couple months till he had a hearing and was able to prove his innocence.

Its completely unconstitutional for many reasons besides heller.

 

[rugerman07]

Under the lausenberg amendment and under many states laws all a woman has to do is call the police or go into family court and say " he hit me or he threatened me, or he scares me, and the judge grants a temporary restraining order against the man. The police then go to the home of the "he" and confiscate all firearms and weapons!!

It's Lautenberg, not Lausenberg as you posted, and it's not just physical confrontations between spouses, regardless of how minor they are. Lautenberg will strip you of your gun rights if you spank your child or get into a physical confrontation with any family member, be it a brother, cousin, etc.

 

[Solo Flyer]

Lautenberg is the most criminally deficient politician in the history of the United States.
The fact that he hails from New Jersey is no accident.
There must a special place in the afterworld waiting for this infamous creature.
He's ruined countless lives because of his distorted,twisted ideology.
Ted Kennedy shines as a beacon of hope compared to this villanous maniac.

 

[NotEnoughSand]

Don't forget that Emerson treated the 2A as an individual right, but the 5th Circuit managed to find that the restraining order was sufficient due process to incapacitate Emerson from exercising it.

Heller doesn't change that outcome. That isn't to say though, that another circuit or SCOTUS cannot find that Lautenberg and similar laws do not afford sufficient due process, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

----
Here's the test we have to argue (at least for the restraining order issue, not the proportionality of the punishment/8th amendment issue):

...identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the government's interest, including the function invovled and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail

Mathews v. Eldridge, 421 US 219 (1976).

 

[rocinante]

"Today, President Bush's radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future."

— Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Funny how they start using the same language conservatives have been using for years when one of their pet peeves gets pounded. What makes it even funnier is 'radical' and 'extremist' are labels they use when justices actually stick to the constitution instead of some made up 'living constitution'.

I also noticed Mayor Daley seems to have discovered state rights. TOO LATE JACK. One thing that might be good out of this is maybe the left wing of America might sober up and see that the original balance of power between states and the federal powers wasn't so stupid and quaint after all. I am southern and overall glad the Confederates were not successful in their rebellion BUT I have full sympathy with their effort to curtail what they saw as abusive federal power. I will admit I do not understand how the bill of rights did not apply to states at any time in our history because states contain we the people.

 

[fal 4 me]

According to the issue of Shotgun News I received in the mail today, newstand issue July 7, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Lautenberg this October called U.S. v. Hayes. Amicus breifs are due in late July.

 

[redneckrepairs]

IMHO the Heller opinion does not address Lautenberg however i could well be wrong as Roe VS Wade found a previously hidden right to abortion back in 1972 . Just what heller alone says will take decades to sort out , much less any new challenge that would factor Heller in . Lautenberg should be chalanged , not because its a misdemeanor prohibition , rather because across the nation the meer accusation and issuance of a restraining order ( which is standard ) makes one a prohibited person . It is in fact denial of rights on an accusation . Take that for what it is worth to yourself , but remember as of now you are a phone call away from being prohibited .

 

[Kharn]

I remember reading that the Supreme Court granted cert on a case centered on the Lautenberg amendment, it will be heard in the October 08 term (aka, the decision will be out by the end of June next year).

Hopefully Kennedy's not so wishywashy on guns this time around...

Kharn