Posted on 03/01/2010 9:52:33 AM PST by Sasparilla
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Lautenberg Law forbidding firearms ownership by a person convicted of domestic violence could be invalid, at least in one case. This is in the light of the groundbreaking Heller decision. The ruling will not set precedent in the 4th Circuit because the case ruling is unpublished. But, it is persuasive in arguments to lower courts in that Circuit, and it is significant.
The case is US v. Chester, No. 09-4084 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010). Here is part of it. “A grand jury sitting in the Southern District of West Virginia indicted William Samuel Chester, Jr., for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Chester moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that application of the federal statute to him violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
The district court denied the motion. Thereafter, Chester pled guilty but reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He now reiterates his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(9).
In the proceedings below, the district court did not address whether Heller required the Government to justify individual laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. Instead, it....
(Excerpt) Read more at secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com ...
Which of your other constitutional rights can be lost?
Can you imagine the outcry if the government passed a law saying that you lose your right to practice your religion if you are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, on the grounds that some religions teach that women should submit to men? Or for that matter, your freedom of speech, right to vote etc.
Right to vote.
9th and 10th Amendments are long lost. 4th is on the 8 count (try to tell a cop he can’t search your car on a traffic stop or enter your home just because he wants to).
The rest are on some form of life support.
Sorry, but there is either a right, or not.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I can’t see anywhere in those few words where it says “except if they committed a felony” or “if some government bueaucrat thinks they should “register” to get a permit to be “allowed” to carry arms concealed.
It seems that the wording is, and was meant to be, VERY explicit. “Shall NOT be infringed” is quite a direct statement and order and prescriptive limitation. If there were to be exceptions made in the slightest, the founders would have added, “except as provided by law” or some such. They didn’t. They kept it extremely short, direct and quite understandable by anyone with more than two functional brain cells - that leaves out most all liberals.
Look at ALL the 10 amendments in the BOR. Many have wiggle room in their wording. The second is about the ONLY one that doesn’t. It says exactly what they meant it to say.
Part of the problem is that in some States if the police are called by either party, or even next door neighbors, they are required to arrest one of the parties. There is no police discretion for times when it was just a simple argument and everything would be fine an hour later after both parties have cooled off. The police can’t say “go spend a night at a hotel and come back tomorrow and apologize.”
Then the prosecutors charge the highest possible charge. The idea is to start big then they’ll still have a charge to work with for plea bargaining. The prosecutors want a high conviction rate and don’t want to lose a case in front of a jury that says “why was this guy even arrested?”
Lousenberg never did anything good in his life.
“Right” to vote has had all sorts of conditions. Men only. Property owners only...
Most (if not all) have been removed by Amendment to the Constitution.
h2h nailed it...ie words mean things, and the Founders knew what they meant when they penned/ratified the statements...
my policy is, if a person is considered tame enuff to walk the same streets as my family, then he should be assumed armed and 'allowed' the weapons to help them if they need it...likewise, if he gets froggy, Mrs gilbo can always shoot the bastard herself...
if said man cannot be trusted with simple tools, ones that he can easily obtain or fashion whenever he chooses, then why is he on the streets in the first place ???
Yes, you and I know what it says, but the sophists argue that it only applies to the federal government, or only in the District of Columbia, or that various states and cities can restrict that right, etc.
It sort of makes the recent brouhaha about firearms in the National Parks seem kind of bizarre, because using their own logic the Parks would be one of the few places that might not be restricted.
Some states require people to flee if their home is invaded by criminals, and prohibit self-defense altogether, unless they are in dire fear for their life. What a pathetic disgusting condition this country is in, when we allow the ignorant to dictate to everyone.
Nobody who isn’t actively incarcerated should be prevented from owning a firearm regardless of what they were convicted of. If they can’t be trusted to live a law-abiding life then either incarcerate or kill them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.