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]

404 - Document Not Found

LOL

[Dead Corpse]

Historical evidence?. You've gotta be getting desperate now. All those quotes from the Founders, who weren't Tory sympathisers, and you still don't get it?

I take it from your failure to answer my other question that you do in fact consider us all Slaves to the Government.

[tpaine]

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.
-RB-


Well said, but clearly, roscoe & all cannot understand the simple language of our constitution, or its principles.
-- Either that, or they reject these principles.
I fear we must conclude that the latter is most likely and they would not honor or protect it, if called to duty.

[Roscoe]

All those quotes from the Founders

Which one says that the Bill of Rights were enacted as restrictions on state governments?

[tpaine]

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

[Eagle Eye]

Your reverence to the law and supreme court decisions is known by all.

What happens if the SCOTUS rules that all hanguns must be registered and the owners licensed?

Do you at that point advocate obeying the ruling?

[tpaine]

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.htm

[Roscoe]

Clearly, this includes the Second Amendment

Beg that question.

"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

1875, 1886

[Roscoe]

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Zero support for your empty assertions there. No wonder you didn't quote it.

[Alpha One]

So now all it takes to lose an unalienable right is a vindictive wife or girlfriend. In fact, in relation to this case, the restraining order is pretty much automatic in a divorce. So let me rephrase that.

The simple act of going through a divorce forces one to surrender their God given unalienable rights. Great.

[Dead Corpse]

If the Constitution for the FedGov didn't apply to the States as well, then why bother having it include a partial list of Rights? After all they wouldn't apply to the States in your twisted little world? All this flies in the face of EVERYTHING I can come up with that the Founders wrote. The US Constitution was the "Supreme Law of the Land". You do know what that phrase means don't you?

Keep it up Slave. Your Masters are proud of you.

[Dead Corpse]

This crap again. You still don't get it do you? This means that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land for NO ONE. That the States can be dictatorships and monarchies.

Even you can't be that stupid.

[Spiff]

This crap again. You still don't get it do you? This means that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land for NO ONE. That the States can be dictatorships and monarchies.

The Constitution set up the Federal Government. It gave it only certain powers to govern itself and to make laws within the scope of authority it was given. Notice that the BoR talks about "congress shall make no law" as it does not apply to the governments of the several states.

However, the Constitution does guarantee to each state a Republican form of government. You dictatorships/monarchies line doesn't hold water.

That is the proper design for the Constitution despite what you've been fed - notwithstanding the erroneaous 14th amendment.

[DugwayDuke]

"Please tell me that you are not under the illusion that even the most ardent 2A supporters believe in RKBA for prisoners?"

Please peruse this thread and tell me that there are not some who suffer from the illusion that any and all restrictions on RKBA are "unreasonable".

""Resonsable restrictions" would include removing arms from a prisoner upon arrest and incarceration, but cannot include removing them upon a routine court injuction."

Isn't that the basis of Emerson? That routine court injuctions are "unreasonable"?

My original comment on this thread was directed towards a comment that implied that all restrictions on RKBA were unreasonable. I have great difficulty with that and the comment, often found on these threads, that all 20,000 gun laws are unconstitutional. (And, yes, I'm aware of the threads on whether there are 350 or 20,000 gun laws.) The point remains that if you think there are no "reasonable" restrictions on RKBA or that all gun laws are unconstitutional, then you must think that (to paraphrase my comments in #16 above):

Incarcerated felons have RKBA.
The mentally impaired should be allowed to possess a firearm.
Those who routinely violate the law should be allowed to posses a firearm. (BTW, that includes drug use.)
You cannnot be denied a firearm just because you go around threatening people with a firearm.
You have every right to operate a high-powered rifle range in your suburban backyard.

[Roscoe]

Still waiting for your first quote.

[tpaine]

Why bother? - If I did quote it, - you would just 'beg the question'.

[DugwayDuke]

"As to the rest of your ignorance, there are other laws that provide penalties for not using good judgement and consideration of you neighbors, but they are not 2nd Amendment based."

My ignorance? Where did I say that these restrictions are based upon any thing other than common sense. I certainly did not say they were based upon the 2nd Amendment. BTW, I'm curious, would you say restrictions on the 1st Amendment, (take for example, the classic restriction on yelling fire in a theater) are based upon the 1st amendment?

Do you believe those "laws that provide penalties for not using good judgement and consideration of you neighbors" that restrict RKBA "reasonable" or "unreasonble"?

"Only you have invented a 'balancing test'."

I am an old man, but the "balancing test" has been around far longer than I. If you have problems with balancing some rights against other rights, then you have a problem with the law in general, not me.

[tpaine]

Idiotic repetitions of out of context quotes only prove mental inbalance.

[DugwayDuke]

Why do you support 'cruikshank'? It's an unreasoned, almost throwaway line in a long decision, accepting the RKBA's as an inalienable right, but denying the 2nd, --- as attempt to buttress the 'states rights' position on civil rights for blacks."

Where, pray tell did I say I "supported" Cruikshank? Despite your (and my) opinion Cruikshank remains the law of the land until overturned. You (and I) may not like that, but neither of us serve on USSC. Don't you understand that I can state the law without rendering an opinion on the law?

Of course, Cruikshank would be overturned should USSC revisit that case, but the fact remains USSC has not done so. BTW, I love using the language from Cruikshank in arguing with gun controlists. It puts them in the position of trying to simultaneously supporting unequal rights for blacks while supporting gun control. Lots of fun.

"This antiquated view of gun/civil rights was being used at the time to justify 'Jim Crow' laws in southern states, and has been well discredited since. "

True, but the whole idea of "incorporation" has caused untold misery for conservatives since it has formed the basis of much litigation at the state and local level and interference with issues that are more properly handled at those levels. You cannot, at the same time, be in favor of limited federal government and also be in favor of "incorporation".

Do you see that ardent supporters of RKBA are being inconsistent with conservative principles when they call for "incorporation" of the 2nd?

[DugwayDuke]

Would you support sending a man to prison just for owning a tool if:

That man is a safe cracker by trade (multiple convictions) and the tool in question is specific to cracking safes?

That man has several convictions for armed robbery and the tool in question is a gun?

That man is the unibomber and, after his release, he is found in possession of gun powder?