Lautenberg's anti-gun travesty will go before the Supreme Court this fall

[gopguy]

The Lautenberg amendment has annoyed me since it became law in 1996. This law stripped American Citizens of their rights, including the right to bear arms for mere misdemeanors. It is also retroactive. Finally a case challenging this travesty will go before the Supreme Court this fall.

Feel free to share this link with family and friends.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5660

 

[Owens]

Questiion:
Is this not the same law that keeps Bloomberg and his like out of the BATFE firearms trace data that he so wants into so he can carry on with his harassment law suites?

If I am right (not saying I am) this could be a double edged sword.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

Only the parts of the law not compliant with the constitution would be struck down not the entire thing.

 

[ctdonath]

This case is ONLY about what puts the "domestic" in "domestic violence" - it has nothing to do with RKBA. It's about what criteria fit the charge, not about the resulting punishment.

 

[G36-UK]

Is this not the same law that keeps Bloomberg and his like out of the BATFE firearms trace data that he so wants into so he can carry on with his harassment law suites?

I thought that was the Tiahrt Amendment.

 

[SHOOT1SAM]

This really isn't a 2nd Amendment case, IMNTBHO. It is or should be about, the fact that the Constitution CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCABLY STATES that the Congress shall pass no laws.............RETROCATIVELY.

I hope that counsel makes that point as well.

Sam

 

[Waitone]

This really isn't a 2nd Amendment case, IMNTBHO. It is or should be about, the fact that the Constitution CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY STATES that the Congress shall pass no laws.............RETROACTIVELY.

Nice sentiment. Irrelevant but nice. I bring to your memory that former President Clinton with the agreement of a republican congress passed a retro active tax increase. Lots of huffing and puffing but NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING was done except gleefully accept the increased taxes.

 

[armoredman]

Fascinating. This one seriously bears watching, because a LOT hinges on the DC vs Heller opinion.

 

[GigaBuist]

This case is ONLY about what puts the "domestic" in "domestic violence" - it has nothing to do with RKBA. It's about what criteria fit the charge, not about the resulting punishment.

That bears repeating.

David Hardy clarifies what the case is about here.

 

[Owens]

G35-UK:
"I thought that was the Tiahrt Amendment."

You are correct sir. I had my amendments mixed up. The one I was thinking of is indeed the Tiahrt.

 

[Guitargod1985]

This really isn't a 2nd Amendment case, IMNTBHO. It is or should be about, the fact that the Constitution CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCABLY STATES that the Congress shall pass no laws.............RETROCATIVELY.

Although IANAL, it is my understanding that the Lautenberg amendment does not qualify as an ex post facto law because it did not retroactively make domestic violence a crime. Domestic violence already was a crime before Lautenberg.

For the record, I think the Lautenberg amendment sucks just like most other gun laws, but I do not believe it is an ex post facto law.

 

[TallPine]

it is my understanding that the Lautenberg amendment does not qualify as an ex post facto law because it did not retroactively make domestic violence a crime. Domestic violence already was a crime before Lautenberg.

Well, it essentially makes a misdemeanor into a felony ex post facto

 

[SHOOT1SAM]

Nice sentiment. Irrelevant but nice. I bring to your memory that former President Clinton with the agreement of a republican congress passed a retro active tax increase. Lots of huffing and puffing but NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING was done except gleefully accept the increased taxes.

I could be wrong, but I believe your memory is a touch off here. IIRC, the retroactive Clinton Tax Increase was passed while the dumbocrats had control of both houses of Congress, i.e., 1993 or 1994. The Republicans didn't take control of Congress until January, 2005.

My main point, however, was that if SCOTUS doesn't overturn the Lout's amendment on 2A grounds, they should still overturn it, if for no other reason, than because of its retroactivity. That would kick open the door to the overturning of many, many more wrongful laws.

If they overturn it ONLY on the misdemeanor vs. felony angle, I'll still be a happy camper.

Sam

 

[GigaBuist]

I could be wrong, but I believe your memory is a touch off here. IIRC, the retroactive Clinton Tax Increase was passed while the dumbocrats had control of both houses of Congress, i.e., 1993 or 1994. The Republicans didn't take control of Congress until January, 2005.

Partly right, partly wrong.

The retroactive tax increase was in 1993 when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. In 1994 the Republican took control of the House and Senate. I believe Bill Clinton has remarked the passage of the AWB in 1993 played a big role in this.

If they overturn it ONLY on the misdemeanor vs. felony angle, I'll still be a happy camper.

Well, you'll be a grumpy camper then. The only question in the case is what constitutes domestic violence.

 

[GhostlyKarliion]

In 1994 the Republican took control of the House and Senate.

actually, no, you are wrong

On November 8th, 1994, republicans took control of the house and senate. the average voter finally got their head out of their rumpus and saw the villiany of the clinton ideaology.

The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995.

 

[SHOOT1SAM]

Gigabuist posted: Partly right, partly wrong.

The retroactive tax increase was in 1993 when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. In 1994 the Republican took control of the House and Senate. I believe Bill Clinton has remarked the passage of the AWB in 1993 played a big role in this.

Thanks for validating my memory. Here's the first two paragraphs of the body of the link you posted:

"The Republican Revolution or Revolution of '94 is what the Republican Party of the United States dubbed their success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections, which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican.

The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. (Bold & Italics, mine)Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952) under Republican Speaker Joseph William Martin, Jr.."

That aside, I think the question before the Court is not what constitutes domestic violence, but whether one can be barred a right guaranteed by the Constitution for a misdemeanor, rather than for a felony. I just happen to think that the retroactivity aspect adds to the strength of the case against the Lout's amendment.

Sam

 

[gopguy]

It is my hope that with the issue before it the Supreme Court will take the opportunity to address the other issues. The whole idea of stripping away rights over an misdemeanor should be tempting to them. They have been known to stretch the parameters of a case. Clearly the arrest stemmed from Lautenberg...we can hope they will take this chance to strike down the law.