Holder and the Feds sued Over MCDV Lifetime Ban; Litigated By Donald Kilmer

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is this constitutional? There is no other crime besides domestic violence where you can get a conviction based on an unprovable accusation.
 
vaherder said:
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.
Click to expand...
Domestic violence, is one of the most abused laws on the books, that women use against a man!
You know nothing, if very little about domestic violence! Or, your interpretation of DV is totally wrong!
 
Lets not forget about VAMA
Under VAMA, states are 'encouraged' to institute "mandatory Arrest" statues to "provide a cooling off period"

In other words, if the cops are called out for a DV, the are legally bound TO arrest someone...

Often it doesn't matter if there is OR isn't evidence, or that misdemeanors MUST be witnessed by LE for them to effect an arrest... Rather that there was an allegation of DV is enough for them to arrest, couple that with the CDC study about 'youth violence' where it pegs WOMEN as the instigators about 2/3rd of the time (first to make 'aggressive' physical contact) and you can see how these policies and laws are sexist.

Hell, have some fun, go check yourself into a DV shelter, see they receive federal fund, and therefor MUST NOT discriminate against age, religion.... SEX... but they refuse to shelter men... HUM and they STILL get funded.
 
Today, knowing the consequences of a DV conviction, an accused is likely to fight tooth and nail in court, and it's very likely that the burden of proof won't be met, and there will be no conviction. Prior to Lautenberg, however, guilty pleas were common, because the accused was tired (particularly in a messy divorce situation), and just wanted to get this chapter in his life behind him. That's the really pernicious aspect of Lautenberg -- its retroactivity. Lautenberg is not really a means of preventing domestic violence; it's really just a way of increasing the number of people ineligible to possess guns. The gun controllers would love to whittle down the numbers of gun owners to zero, using whatever pretexts are convenient. The Lautenberg amendment, and its proponents, are utterly stunning in their dishonesty. They know that there's no political lobby for "wife beaters." For them, this was the low-hanging fruit. Who will be next -- registered machine gun owners? People who had a past episode of depression? Anything and anyone is fair game to the controllers, provided they can pin a label of "unpopularity" on it.
 
razorback2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
anthonyca said:
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.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, than how does this court case against Holder and the feds stand a chance?
 
From the ATF:

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
RatDrall said:
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?
Click to expand...
That is exactly it. The Feds are not recognizing California's version of expungement.
 
anthonyca said:
That is exactly it. The Feds are not recognizing California's version of expungement.
Click to expand...
Is this just in California, or nation wide? Would moving to another state to get expunged make any difference.
 
Is this just in California, or nation wide? Would moving to another state to get expunged make any difference.
Click to expand...

Expungements happen in the state where you were convicted.

An expungement is supposed to be treated like the conviction never happened.
 
CCI said:
Would moving to another state to get expunged make any difference.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Zoogster said:
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.
Click to expand...
This explains what is going on.
 
I wanted to edit my OP but I guess this site locks you out after a while. Here is the first page of a similar thread on calguns. http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=417935

If you know anyone who has been impacted by lautenberg or feels that the lifetime misdemeanor ban is wrong, please email them a link to this thread. There are millions of us who feel this law is wrong. Let's go viral with this.

Donating money here http://madison-society.org/donation.html would really help this case and a possible future case for the plaintif who was dismissed by the judge. According to Donald Kilmer, that plaintiff had the best 10th amendment claim.

The 10th amendment claim will get more people interested than just gun people.

The Madison Society is suing Eric Holder and the feds over the lifetime federal ban on "domestic violence" misdemeanants. People who know about this issue know just how easy it is to become prohibited due to one of these convictions.

The case is Enos V Holder.
http://madison-society.org/laws/litigation.htm




Look at page 12. http://www.madison-society.org/laws/...-1-MTD-MPA.pdf The government is arguing that the second amendment is NOT a civil right. They say voting, speech, freedom of the press are, but not the second.

Update; Don Kilmer filed this Supplemental Authority. http://ia600300.us.archive.org/35/it...15824.23.0.pdf

Update; Enos survived the motion to dismiss by the federal government.http://ia600300.us.archive.org/attac...15824.24.0.pdf

We are winning!
 
I'd be happy if more violent misdemeanors and fewer non-violent felonies were punished by suppressing gun rights.
 
I'd be happy if more violent misdemeanors and fewer non-violent felonies were punished by suppressing gun rights.
Click to expand...

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.
 
leadcounsel said:
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).
Click to expand...
+1...

I thought that the OP made the argument that upon passage is retroactively stripped the rights of many.... I thought that "Expos Factos" application of any law was specifically prohibited in the Constitution... I feeling a bit lazy here, and haven't looked it up, but the wayback protion of my brain is recalling some law professors going over Constitutional History, and that the framers specifically included the "After the Fact" or Expos Factos into the Bill of RIghts as is was one of the tricks that ole King George pulled on the Colonist.. therefore expressly prohibited...

Or am I wandering around in Left Field again looking for the origin of my Mad Cow symptoms?
 
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.
Click to expand...


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."
 
azmjs said:
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."
Click to expand...
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.

Telling a repeat armed robber they can no longer own a gun won't stop them.
Telling Joe-well behaved-Citizen they can no longer own a gun probably will stop them.
These laws don't make you one bit safer, just a hell of a lot less free.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Texas CHL holders are criminals...So Wisconsin CCW holders should be made public.
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Double Naught Spy
Double Naught Spy
C
  • Locked
Wisconsin: "GOP pushes state ban on suing gun manufacturers"
Replies
0
Views
308
cuchulainn
C
A
  • Locked
Seen this? Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy is at it again, or should I say still?
Replies
12
Views
724
Zundfolge
Zundfolge
C
  • Locked
Phillipines: "Ebdane: No gun ban for politicians"
Replies
2
Views
711
Airwolf
A
2
  • Locked
Feds trying to cut off Tacoma dealer who supplied sniper gun
Replies
18
Views
1K
stevelyn
S
Back
Top