Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
How is this constitutional? There is no other crime besides domestic violence where you can get a conviction based on an unprovable accusation.
Do you mean this?.
I'm not understanding this case either.
And doesn't this case come under the purview of Lautenburg which was decided to be legal from SCOTUS?
.
Domestic violence, is one of the most abused laws on the books, that women use against a man!Tough you have DV conviction. Don't have a problem with these folks not being able to possess firearms legally ever. Rather err on the side of caution.
You dont beat your kids or your partner. You walk away. If he or she is wailing away on you you walk away.
Yeah I know some guys and the instances are very rare get wrongly convicted of DV but oh well in this case I dont have a problem with a very, very few innocent people not being able to possess firearms ever.
Have no tolerance for DV and back when I was on active duty if you committed the crime you went to a court martial and were punished to the full extent of the UCMJ when you fell under my command. No slaps on the wrist. No masts.
A man never strikes a woman he is involved with.
Razorback,I was under the assumption that a domestic violence conviction like other misdemeanors could be expunged and the problem would be taken care of. Even some felonies courts will sometimes expunge. So why is this being treated different regarding firearms rights by the feds?
If a person has this misdemeanor conviction expunged, isn't that person then legal in buying/possessing a firearm? Expungement is the courts' process I thought in getting rid of convictions.
I reread the law and it seems to say that if you have had the conviction expunged that you have not been convicted of domestic violence. Do the feds not consider this California 10 year process expungement or conviction set aside? In Tennessee it is common for after a certain period of time courts to do expungements and wipe the record clear.
If that's the case, than how does this court case against Holder and the feds stand a chance?Razorback,
California, and many other states, have a process for expungement of misdemeanors. The Feds use to recognize this process but they have changed policy. There is even a memo from the California attorney general stating this change. California had to fire many police officers and prison guards after this change.
Wyoming sued the Feds for the same thing and lost.
The Feds excuse for not recognizing expungement is that although there are no existing limitations on ones rights after expungement, the original conviction can still be used as a prior in sentencing for a future crime, so the Feds say its not expunged.
A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that:
1.is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law;
2.has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
3.was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
However, a person is not considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence unless:
1.the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right of counsel in the case; and
2.in the case of a prosecution for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either —
a.the case was tried by a jury, or
b.the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
In addition, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held provides for the loss of civil rights upon conviction for such an offense) unless the pardon, expunction, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms, and the person is not otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing firearms.
True, plus look at question 14 answer.From the ATF:
The ATF, and the law itself, states that an expunged conviction is not disabling.
I guess I don't understand what the lawsuit is about? Is the fedgov just not recognizing Californias expungements, or what?
That is exactly it. The Feds are not recognizing California's version of expungement.From the ATF:
The ATF, and the law itself, states that an expunged conviction is not disabling.
I guess I don't understand what the lawsuit is about? Is the fedgov just not recognizing Californias expungements, or what?
Is this just in California, or nation wide? Would moving to another state to get expunged make any difference.That is exactly it. The Feds are not recognizing California's version of expungement.
Is this just in California, or nation wide? Would moving to another state to get expunged make any difference.
Would moving to another state to get expunged make any difference.
This explains what is going on.CCI said:
No you can only expunge or seal a record in the state the crime took place in, the courts of another state have no jurisdiction over the records of other states.
If it happened in California it could only be dealt with in California.
This would effect other states as well. What the feds are saying is that if the crime can still be considered in the future, then it is not really considered to have never happened.
Some states do not really 'expunge' or offer actual expungement, merely a version of sealing records. Even some places that may use the term "expunge".
Sealed records are legally different than expunged records. Generally expunged records are considered to have not existed.
While sealed records still exist, are on file, they simply are sealed so that it limits who can access or view them. They are not considered to have never happened by the government.
The feds are essentially saying that California only really offers an option that is akin to sealing records, not expungement, and so any adult conviction in California is permanent along with any resulting federal prohibitions, even if the state offers a way to regain rights.
How is this constitutional? There is no other crime besides domestic violence where you can get a conviction based on an unprovable accusation.
I'd be happy if more violent misdemeanors and fewer non-violent felonies were punished by suppressing gun rights.
+1...Lautenberg is so blatantly in violation of the 2A and the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th. Heck maybe even the 1st.
Things you say (the 1st) can strip you of your gun rights (2nd) without a fair trial (preemptive - in violation of the 4th) and you're not guaranteed representation at that civilian trial (6th). Stripping someone of their Constitutional rights for an argument with a girlfriend is cruel and unusual punishment (8th).
Then you must not believe in the 2nd amendment, as a right.
To some people, 2A is just a privelage to be screwed with and administered by the State.
The problem is that the "suppression of rights" in this country has little to do with "punishing wrong doing" and a lot to do with building a better slave.It is perfectly normal to punish wrongdoing by suppressing rights.
Up to and including the right to live.
If we were to accept what you're saying, then we'd be forced to concede, because of capitol punishment, that people have no right to live, only a "privilege to be screwed with and administered by the State."
Uh huh...