Posted on 10/02/2013 2:19:29 PM PDT by marktwain
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Castleman, a Tennessee case involving the Lautenberg amendment that deprives individuals of second amendment rights if convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
James Alvin Castleman plead guilty to a crime of domestic assault in 2001, then in 2008 he was found in possession of firearms and convicted of illegal possession of firearms under the Lautenberg amendment.
A federal judge said that the Tennessee law did not meet the requirements of the federal law for domestic violence, and dismissed the charges. The Sixth Circuit, on appeal, upheld the findings of the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, is appealing the decision of the Sixth Circuit to the Supreme Court.
Scotusblog reports:
Justice Elena Kagan is not participating in this case.A similar case in Wisconsin has resulted in the only appeal to a refusal to grant a concealed carry permit since the State passed its concealed carry reform in 2011.
Why is it interesting that Kagan is not participating?
Kagan is generally regarded as a reliable “progressive” vote for more government power. If she is not participating, a 4-4 split means the decision stands, and much of the nasty Lautenberg amendment becomes unconstitutional as it has been applied.
No more losing your constitunal rights for a lifetime because of the accusation that you yelled at your girlfriend.
This is the same SCOTUS that gave us ObamaTAX.
Anyone really think they’ll uphold the Constitution?
As far as I’m concerned, denying someone from having a firearm because of any police record is not only unconstitutional, its stupid.
Any man, legal or not can get a firearm if he really wants one.
Removing Kagan from the mix gives a good shot at it.
Lautenberg is horrendous! I hope that this case can force an end to the federal taking of ones constitutional right over a state judged misdemeanor.
I have a facebook page that is an about forum to discuss this particular law.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/repeallautenberg/
“an open forum”
Given Scalia's defense of precedence and justification of the War on Drugs in Raich, where he approved federal regulation ostensibly derived from the commerce clause to apply to non-commerce… I wouldn't be so sure.
The big problem is that the court really doesn't care about the Constitution and will sing and dance and rewrite ("reinterpret") until they get the answer they want.
“The big problem is that the court really doesn’t care about the Constitution and will sing and dance and rewrite (”reinterpret”) until they get the answer they want.”
I hope you are wrong, but I fear that you are right.
I know a guy that had an ex-girlfriend use this as a weapon to virtually ruin him. Turned his life upside down. His lawyers couldn’t believe it.
The constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment is not raised in this case. The issue is whether the particular Tennessee law under which the defendant was convicted counts as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" within the meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment. The petition for certiorai is here.
Given the current state of FEDERAL over-reach , it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that you could loose your 2nd amendment rights
after being convicted in municiple court for " Wreckess driving ", or a disregard for safety .
Look how the allegation of "domestic abuse" was used in the Zimmerman marital debacle ; it was an allegation that gave the plaintiff power
even though it was later withdrawn; the harm was already done !
Is it illegal for criminals who have used knives in violent crimes to own a steak knife and use it to cut up their T-Bone??
Lautenberg was passed by a GOP congress......
Yes, I remember. The pressure by the MSM was intense. It was also passed before the Heller decision.
I still have to study this issue. But the above line got my attention. The problem that I have with the federal law for domestic violence is the following. Noting that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Clause 2 of Article VI, applies only to powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution, I can't think of any constitutional statute that clearly indicates that the states have ever delegated to the feds the specific power to address domestic violence.
And since the Constitution is silent about domestic violence, the 10th Amendment clarifies that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
So I surmise that the federal judge is doing nothing more than regurgitating the constitutional indoctrination that many students get in law school.
hooray for this..
it would take all my fingers and toes to count the number of people i know who’s ex wives have cost them the right to hunt, bear and keep arms..
the domestic violence act is just another way for a woman to control a man..
how many men have made their ex wifes unable to purchase or possess firearms??
answer is... ZERO..
time to end this game of who files what first...
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.