Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tarheelswamprat
Yes, this is a result of the Lautenberg Amendment to the "Protection From Violence Against Women Act"(or some such name) a few years back. It was a vicious little poison pill Sen. Frank Lautenberg-NJ inserted to expand the scope of the existing restrictions on felons possessing guns to include even potential or alleged domestic violence against women.

It sounds like some NRA lawyers need to make this into a court case. He is literally stripped of an enumerated Constitutional right on the simple accusations of one person. He has no opportunity to defend himself against the accusations.

That law makes it flat simple to disarm anyone at all. One need only persuade a judge to issue a restraining order, and that's it.

If a constitutional lawyer can't get that law thrown out, he's not worth his paycheck.

88 posted on 08/31/2007 11:02:21 AM PDT by TChris (Has anyone under Mitt Romney's leadership ever been worse off because he is Mormon?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]


To: TChris
If a constitutional lawyer can't get that law thrown out, he's not worth his paycheck

As decided by 'United States v. Emerson' it's the law of the land.

114 posted on 08/31/2007 11:43:08 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: TChris
It sounds like some NRA lawyers need to make this into a court case.

NRA lawyers actually work a 2nd Amendment case? Surely you jest. NRA laywers have absolutely nothing to do with actual court cases of any kind, and 2nd Amendment cases are like poison to them.

Heck, the NRA even tried to dissuade the plaintiffs in the Parker case.

L

174 posted on 09/01/2007 7:31:04 AM PDT by Lurker ( Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing smallpox and ebola.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: TChris
It sounds like some NRA lawyers need to make this into a court case.

Been there, done that. Lost.

See "US. vs. Emerson, 5th Circuit.

Actually he won at the district court level, see here, but the 5th circuit overturned on appeal by the government. The Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

However both district and circuit courts ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. The 5th circuit ruled that it was OK to remove the right because the divorce proceedings constituted "due process". I think their arguments were weak, perhaps deliberately so, in hopes the Supreme Court would overturn, while upholding the individual right portion of the ruling.

203 posted on 09/01/2007 10:31:07 AM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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