Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to hear a Lautenberg Amendment Case
Gun Watch ^ | 3 October, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

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.

 There does not appear to be any reference to second amendment rights in the appeal.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; lautenberg; secondamendment; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
No one has raised second amendment concerns in this case. It is interesting that Justice Kagan will not be participating in the case.
1 posted on 10/02/2013 2:19:29 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Why is it interesting that Kagan is not participating?


2 posted on 10/02/2013 2:25:28 PM PDT by socalgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: socalgop

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.


3 posted on 10/02/2013 2:29:18 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is the same SCOTUS that gave us ObamaTAX.

Anyone really think they’ll uphold the Constitution?


4 posted on 10/02/2013 2:31:25 PM PDT by Old Sarge (Opinions are like orgasms: only mine count, and I couldn't care less if you have one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


5 posted on 10/02/2013 2:31:50 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

Removing Kagan from the mix gives a good shot at it.


6 posted on 10/02/2013 2:37:28 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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/


7 posted on 10/02/2013 2:38:27 PM PDT by roostercogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: roostercogburn

“an open forum”


8 posted on 10/02/2013 2:39:06 PM PDT by roostercogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Removing Kagan from the mix gives a good shot at it.

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.

9 posted on 10/02/2013 2:44:43 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“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.


10 posted on 10/02/2013 2:46:30 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


11 posted on 10/02/2013 2:47:21 PM PDT by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
a 4-4 split means the decision stands, and much of the nasty Lautenberg amendment becomes unconstitutional as it has been applied.

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.

12 posted on 10/02/2013 2:48:30 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Throw in Heller Vs. DC where Scalia restated that rights aren't absolute and continued the no guns in gov't deemed areas, ie schools, buildings, 'sensitive areas', subways, and none for the insane.
13 posted on 10/02/2013 2:51:14 PM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: roostercogburn; cripplecreek
roostercogburn :" I hope that this case can force an end to the federal taking of ones constitutional right over a state judged misdemeanor."

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 !

14 posted on 10/02/2013 2:55:38 PM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

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??


15 posted on 10/02/2013 3:00:41 PM PDT by roostercogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; All
You are correct when you say that the constitutionality of the Lautenberg amendment is not raised. However, the constitutionality of how it has been applied to the states is at issue. If the court uphold the appeal, the DOJ says that Lautenberg will become functionally unenforceable (an exaggeration, I am sure, because two thirds of the state definitions of domestic violence will not apply.
16 posted on 10/02/2013 3:01:16 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: roostercogburn

Lautenberg was passed by a GOP congress......


17 posted on 10/02/2013 3:03:25 PM PDT by roostercogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: roostercogburn
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.

18 posted on 10/02/2013 3:07:01 PM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; All
A federal judge said that the Tennessee law did not meet the requirements of the federal law for domestic violence, and dismissed the charges.

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.

19 posted on 10/02/2013 3:18:33 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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...


20 posted on 10/02/2013 3:19:17 PM PDT by joe fonebone (a socialist is just a juvenile communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson