https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cr0430-37
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.
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.