1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Small victory in gun law.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by eye5600, Jun 19, 2009.

  1. eye5600

    eye5600 Active Member

    Jan 8, 2009

    IANAL, however, I think the gist is something like this.

    If you have a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, then you lose your gun rights. This case was about a guy who was prosecuted for having a gun after a DV conviction. The court held that, under RKBA, the gov't could not deny him the right of self-defense without adequate reason, which, under DV law, would be that he might be violent again (and use the gun).

    The court held that if the defendant could prove that he was not a threat to use a gun in a DV situation, that the jury could acquit him of the crime of having a gun when he shouldn't have.

    It's not actually very helpful to any DV offender, I think. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove he is not a threat, and that seems hard. On the other hand, there are a lot of people with DV misdemeanor records that didn't have any actual violence above a push or a tug.

    Some of the law professors at the Volokh Conspiracy blog think this will be overturned, mostly because they think the Lautenberg Amendment should have been ruled unconstitutional, but wasn't.
  2. bigione

    bigione New Member

    Mar 29, 2009
    south central SD
    It seems with time and distance, many DV cases could be reconsidered. Ie, one spouse has moved far away, died, or they have resolved their differences. A good law could let someone be reconsidered for legal gun owenership and possesion.
  3. deadin

    deadin Senior Member

    Jul 13, 2005
    Ocean Shores, WA
    I can see the reasoning behind the "no guns for DV" laws, but there should be a definite time limit imposed. If after a certain amount of time (I guess to be determined by the severity of the original violence), the restriction should be automatically lifted. Anybody guilty of DV and apt to re-offend will have re-offended whether they have a gun or not. Doing so would just extend the "no gun" time.
    (Notice I said "guilty", not just "accused".)
  4. ArfinGreebly

    ArfinGreebly Moderator Emeritus

    Oct 10, 2006
    North Idaho
    Prior Restraint

    The concept that you must "prevent" someone from doing something, because you believe that it's arbitrarily probable is morally repugnant and constitutionally wrong. It assumes guilt-before-action.

    The standard that should be applied is "if you trust a man to walk the streets and to mingle and work with others, and to engage in otherwise unrestricted commerce, then his right to self defense and the tools thereof must not be abridged."

    Lautenberg really needs to be struck from the books.

  5. Dr. Fresh

    Dr. Fresh Active Member

    Jul 21, 2008
    I agree 100% Arfin. I really hate how prior restraint infringements are tolerated with regard to the 2A, but challenged with regard to other amendments like the 1A.
  6. george29

    george29 Participating Member

    Sep 23, 2006
    Land of Entrapment
    Never heard of a law or court order that saved a life from a determined person.

Share This Page