Texas man sentenced to prison for having gun while under protective order - Emerson

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 1/24/03 | AP

[FSPress]

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- A man was sentenced Friday to 2½ years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order -- a limitation on gun rights that an appeals court held was constitutionally acceptable.

The U.S. Supreme Court last June declined to hear arguments that Timothy Emerson should have been allowed to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

Emerson was indicted after the restraining order was issued during his divorce in 1998. He owned several rifles and a handgun at the time.

A federal judge dismissed the charges, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in 2001, ruling that an individual's right to bear arms could be restricted in some circumstances.

In Emerson's case and a similar one the Supreme Court also rejected, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as the collective right to gun ownership. That position reversed decades-old policy on the Second Amendment.

The administration, though, did not support Emerson's appeal, saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case sent it back to the district court, where Emerson was convicted in October.

Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, argued at trial his client shouldn't be punished for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed. He plans to appeal the sentence.

Emerson had faced a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

[Roscoe]

Also, if it ratified by the individual States then those State legislatures approve of the measure.

As a restriction on the powers delegated.

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 1833

Historical ignorance is a poor basis for forming opinions.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I didn't mean it to be bigoted. I see it as simply an observation of fact.

So all men who get divorced were fooling around?

What planet do you live on? Most of the divorces I have observed were just the opposite.

[tpaine]

You'll start backing up your assertions with sources?
That'll be the day.
72 -roscoe-

You persist in insisting that all cites & sources, save your own, are 'begging the question'.
This is specious, and silly reasoning.
Case in point; -- you just posted at #70, a quote from 'Barron' that seems to agree with your theory on the preamble, although in reality, it's out of context & self serving, thus 'begging' -- by your own standards.

I suggest we stop using these petty one liner type 'put downs', and try to answer comments in the spirit they are made.

[Roscoe]

You persist in insisting that all cites & sources

Don't pretend. NO cites, NO sources.

[Dead Corpse]

So you admit you are a Slave. Your Barron dodge has been shot down before for the racist crap it is. How else could they keep firearms out of the hands of "darky".

You should be ashamed of even trying such a tactic here.

Here's a link that plays out the entire timeline of your racist argument.

[AUgrad]

So all men who get divorced were fooling around?

What planet do you live on? Most of the divorces I have observed were just the opposite

I think you misunderstood me. The statement was "If men are so selfish, why do women control 80% of the wealth in this country?. IMO many men make unwise decisions based upon their more instinctive urges.Meaning many make the decision to ally themselves with an unsuitable mate. Thus my statement.

[Roscoe]

You've NEVER refuted the facts noted in Barron v. Baltimore or offered so much as a hint of historical evidence to the contrary.

Beg on.

[Dead Corpse]

What facts? that a corrupt, racist court decided that the BOR only applied to the FedGov so they could keep n#ggers in their place? What's to argue with? They did it.

What is sickening is that you think they were RIGHT.

As for the Founders, well "Yes"... the BOR applies to all Government within the United States as these are a BASIC list of Rights. Fed, State, and Local. All are bound by the minimum imposed by the BOR.

So now, who was in the "right" on our Rights? The Founders who set up the country, or racist judges and activist legislators trying to keep their jobs?

Keep begging. As a Slave that is about all you CAN do.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

IMO many men make unwise decisions based upon their more instinctive urges.

No, the reason is because men are expected to support lots of other people.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

IMO many men make unwise decisions based upon their more instinctive urges.

No, the reason is because men are expected to support lots of other people.

[jeremiah]

Those are restrictions based on safety and a reasonable right to be safe. The 2nd amendment should be under no more restrictions than the first. If you harm someone, or your activity could reasonably harm someone, you violate a law. To send a man to prison, for owning a tool that is not used, is inexplicable. I don't see how it can be defended without a mental pretzel being formed.

[Roscoe]

What facts?

These:

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 1833

Produce any historical evidence to contrary.

[tpaine]

Dead Corpse"
The Pre-amble to the BOR is all the incorperation it [the 2nd] requires.

False. -rosoce-


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,
~ in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers ~,
that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
_________________________________

The Constitution delegates powers to the federal government. The Preamble states that the Bill of Rights was written to prevent misconstruction or abuse of those delegated federal powers.
-roscoe-

You misquote the line ~ "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" ~ these are not 'federal' powers, but constitutional powers, which powers restrict both federal & state goverments.

Big difference.

True, it is left to the federal government to enforce constitutional powers, but a separation of powers, - 'checks & balances' were supposed to protect states from federal domination. This has failed.
-- It will not be solved by allowing states to ignore the constitution & the 2nd, as do the feds.

Thus roscoe, your defense of 'states rights' v RKBA's is based on just another sham, as detailed above.

[Roscoe]

Empty assertions, no sources.

SOP

[jeremiah]

Awarded 90% of post tax income

You got off easy. I was ordered to pay 928 dollars a month, while making $6 an hour, based on wages imputed by an average.

[go star go]

I think he actually threatened her with the gun. That's how he got caught with a gun he wasn't supposed to have.

[Redbob]

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

This has uniformly been interpreted to extend the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the States.

Clearly, this includes the Second Amendment, and a suit has been filed in California over this very issue.
Stay tuned.

Timothy Emerson, BTW, is an *sswipe whose difficulties are self-inflicted. He got in trouble for pulling out his Beretta and waving it in his ex-wife's face in a clearly threatening manner. Could have prosecuted for assault, but wasn't.

[Redbob]

Emerson is also a medical doctor who is only allowed to see female patients under supervision because of his previous sexual misconduct.

He's a pathetic loser, and it pained me that he was our "poster boy" for so long!

[Dead Corpse]

He said... she said type thing. Apparently She went to see him at his office. He SUPPOSEDLY, no other witnesses, brandish a gun at her.

[tpaine]

What facts?
These:
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 1833

Produce any historical evidence to contrary.
-roscoe-

Here tis. - The words herein blow your out of context snippet out of the water.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.html