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

Lautenberg ruled on?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by usmarine0352_2005, Dec 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797
    .
    Did I miss something?

    I was just checking out the oppositions website and saw this. This can't be right.


    It says that on Nov. 10th, SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) was hearing U.S. v Hayes, a case involving the Lautenberg Amendment.


    http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1084


    .
     
  2. DefectoAntesto

    DefectoAntesto Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Colorado
    Check out http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes for a summary of the case.

    According to the article, the question presented to the court is whether "18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits anyone convicted of a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' from possessing a firearm, apply only to offenders convicted of crimes that specifically have as an element a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim, or does it apply more broadly to any misdemeanor crime of violence that involves a domestic relationship, even if that relationship is not an element of the offense?"

    The case does not seem to implicate constitutional issues, i.e. Heller or the 2nd Am. Rather, looks more like a run of the mill statutory interpretation. That is, does the statute require a person to be specifically convicted of a "domestic violence" crime, or does it only require a person to be convicted of a "violence" crime that involves a domestic situation?

    Here is a link to the 64 page oral argument transcript, if you're interested in having a look: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-608.pdf
     
  3. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797
    O.


    That's good. I figured something this big wouldn't go un-noticed on this board and the national media.


    We do need to get rid of the Lautenberg Act though.

    What a crock it is.

    .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page