(WY) State appeals gun rights ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar.../wyoming/0e9422dc2274ddf48725733b00034fd5.txt

State appeals gun rights ruling

By Ben Neary
Associated Press Writer Monday, August 20, 2007

CHEYENNE -- The state of Wyoming says the federal agency that enforces gun laws was wrong to reject a state law that seeks to allow people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence charges to regain their firearms rights in the state courts.

Wyoming this week filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver challenging a ruling this May by U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson of Cheyenne.

Johnson ruled against the state's claim that the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arbitrarily rejected a 2004 state law that allows people convicted of domestic violence to petition in state court to restore their gun rights.

The federal agency had warned Wyoming that if it continued to allow people with such domestic violence convictions to buy guns, the agency would no longer recognize more than 10,000 concealed carry permits issued by the state as a substitute for federal background checks for firearms purchases.

Congress in 1996 expanded the law that bans convicted felons from owning guns to apply to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Although states have the ability to expunge convictions, Wyoming's law specified that convictions could be removed for purposes of restoring firearms rights yet remain intact for purposes of enhancing punishment for any subsequent conviction.

In his ruling, Johnson ruled that the BATF has the authority to determine whether a state law is insufficient to remove a federal prohibition against a person carrying firearms.

The Wyoming Attorney General's Office issues concealed carry permits for firearms in the state. Attorney General Pat Crank has said that he's aware of one person who has obtained a concealed carry permit after having a misdemeanor conviction expunged.

In its brief filed this week, Crank's office states that the BATF is trying to circumvent federal law.

The state argues that Congress has specified that states should be able to set up their own systems of restoring gun rights to people convicted of domestic violence by erasing the disqualifying conviction.

"The BATF is attempting to administratively undo what Congress has legislatively done," the AG's brief states. "The BATF simply does not agree, on a policy basis, with the Wyoming Legislature's decision and has self-appointed itself the omnipotent role of deciding who should, and should not, possess firearms."

Crank didn't immediately respond to a telephone message left at his office Friday.

In past interviews, Crank has emphasized that state judges and prosecutors carefully scrutinize all petitions from people convicted of domestic violence who ask to have their gun rights restored. This week's legal brief from the state says the restoration process "is not some reckless, haphazard procedure."

Wyoming's legal challenge has drawn attention on both sides of the gun-control debate nationwide. The National Rifle Association weighed in supporting the state's position in Johnson's court. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C., applauded Johnson's ruling in May.

Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center, said Friday his group continues to follow the state's case.

"We believe that the state and the gun lobby should not be trying to make it easier for domestic violence abusers to get dangerous weapons like firearms," Vice said.

"This case could be important nationwide, because it's a real concern whether the federal government will be allowed to do its job and enforce the law to prevent dangerous people from getting guns," Vice said. "And if Wyoming is able to skirt the law and enable dangerous people to get guns, then other states could do that too, at the behest of the gun lobby."

Ashley Varner, spokeswoman for the NRA in Fairfax, Va., said Friday she would look into whether the group intends to stay involved in the case at the appellate level. She didn't immediately respond with word of the NRA's position.

E-MAIL THIS STORY
 
"In his ruling, Johnson ruled that the BATF has the authority to determine whether a state law is insufficient to remove a federal prohibition against a person carrying firearms."

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't this sort of decision reserved to a judge in some court, normally? It seems to me an elected legislatures laws shouldn't be vulnerable to the whims of an enforcement arm of the government. Kinda like the traffic cop deciding that in YOUR case, even though the legislature says the speed limit's 70, he thinks it should be 55 so you're getting ticketed for 65.
 
"This case could be important nationwide, because it's a real concern whether the federal government will be allowed to do its job and enforce the law to prevent dangerous people from getting guns," Vice said. "And if Wyoming is able to skirt the law and enable dangerous people to get guns, then other states could do that too, at the behest of the gun lobby."

As much as I want to play devil's advocate to understand the anti's point of view, I have to ask the following:

1. Who decides whom is dangerous, and using what critera decided upon for what reasons?

2. How does one make such a determination without violating ANYONE's Constitutionally enumerated rights?
 
Something about Lautenburg that never should have been allowed to leave the house intact.
Does anyone remember if this was passed from committee or was this amended on the house floor?
If you think this is bad there are states with second chance laws with pre-conviction alternatives that are not true second chances. Texas is one as deferred adjudication probation is considered a conviction by TDPS. The background checks by private business may be through non gov criminal history clearing houses. The HR dept. may consider the applicant a liar as well a thief as they answer the ? on the app no for felony convictions.
Someone tried to stir up a thread a few days ago referencing the thousands of felony offenses on record in Texas code.
 
Wouldn't It Be Simpler . . .

. . . to simply repeal Lautenberg?

Lautenberg permits the abridgement of civil rights based solely on hearsay.

There is no due process.

And even after there IS due process, this creates a special class of misdemeanor that allows us to label someone as a "BAD" person.

Which designation is usually the domain of a FELONY conviction.

The other thing (and this is more probably what worries the BATF) is that this could establish a chain of precedence that allows a convicted -- and therefore "prohibited" -- person to regain his rights.

As far as the BATF is concerned, that really can't be allowed.

It diminishes their power.
 
The votes have never been there to repeal Lautenberg in the US Senate since it was passed in 1996.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top