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.

[FSPress]

Reasonable restriction on the 2nd ??? Thanks Ashcroft

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

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.

Are there enough conservatives left in the field of law to fill our circuit courts?

[umgud]

There is another bigger problem here. While I don't know specifically whether Emerson was violent and abusive, I do know that too often divorce lawyers automatically demand restraining orders. This is often done without regard to the restrainee's actions or lack thereof and create untold thousands of criminals who own guns and get divorces. This is BS.

[Founding Father]

Yes, but Bush's federal judge nominations are not made by him, but by state republican party muckity-mucks and is based on cronyism, blah-blah-blah. Don't expect much---true conservative legal minds don't mix well with this group and get left out.

[thinktwice]

the Bush administration told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as the collective right to gun ownership

Can ANYONE tell me what "collective right" means?

The concept of having political rights is restricted -- solely -- to individual human beings.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions...

Treason!

[FSPress]

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/Legal/AshcroftMemo.pdf

Bush's Justice Department also supports the Lautenberg Restrictions that Emerson is going to jail over. See the link for Ashcroft's letter on Emerson,.

[SSN558]

"I do know that too often divorce lawyers automatically demand restraining orders. This is often done without regard to the restrainee's actions or lack thereof and create untold thousands of criminals who own guns and get divorces. This is BS."

..and because of this lawyers representing men will advise them: DO NOT under any circumstances ever make contact with the woman. When a woman hires a lawyer concerning marriage, child custody, or divorce it is over, move on.

[LibKill]

Another reason to stay single. Restraining orders are part of the divorce package now, justified or not.

[Travis McGee]

Bang!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

When a woman hires a lawyer concerning marriage, child custody, or divorce it is over, move on.

Except for the confiscatory alimony and child support part. If the judge happens to award more than you make, then he/she/it will advise you to start robbing banks or whatever it takes to earn the amount of money he/she/it thinks you should be earning.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Sick, isn't it? The man had committed no violent act, but his rights were removed as though he might. Our system of government is out of control. It is becoming fight or die, kill or be killed.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The damned amendment does NOT say, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be subject to reasonable restrictions, determined by an out of control government.

Bush and his administration are done. No better than the Klintons.

[TaxPayer2000]

A man was sentenced Friday to 2½ years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order

Sick, isn't it? The man had committed no violent act, but his rights were removed as though he might.

not to mention he will be imprisoned for 2.5 years for simply owning a gun......

[SSN558]

"Except for the confiscatory alimony and child support part. If the judge happens to award more than you make, then he/she/it will advise you to start robbing banks or whatever it takes to earn the amount of money he/she/it thinks you should be earning."

LOL, I know people that have had this happen out in CA. They lose everything they own, live in a garage, storage unit, or a vehicle, never see their children again, etc. Without the minimum resources needed to be a reliable employee they end up with huge arrearages plus interest. I knew a rocket engineer that ended up working as a fisherman in Alaska after his divorce. I sold him my camper shell and he lived in that for a while.

Another one I knew couldn't cope and gave himself a .45 caliber headache.

The whole story about the Doctor in the Texas case is not being told. I'm guessing he screwed up somehow. Had second thoughts and called the wife or missed his children and tried to see them. Five years is a hell of a price to pay for trying to save a marriage or see your children.

Once the lawyers are on the case it is not a matter of the heart anymore it is and always will be a matter of law. Strictly your lawyer can talk to my lawyer, take all the money, and pray for a favorable outcome.

[DugwayDuke]

Yes, there are "reasonable" restriction on RKBA. Just as there are "reasonable" restrictions on "free speech" or any other right.

Just a few:
No, you cannot possess a firearm while in prison.
No, you cannot be mentally impaired and possess a firearm.
No, you cannot routinely violate the law and posses a firearm. (BTW, that includes drug use.)
No, you cannot threaten someone with a firearm.
No, you cannot operate a high-powered rifle range in your suburban backyard.

There is a "balancing test" with RKBA, just like all other rights. To say otherwise damages RKBA.

[FSPress]

Do you think that Lautenberg is a reasonable restriction? The Bush Justice Department thinks so.

[Delmarksman]

"No, you cannot operate a high-powered rifle range in your suburban backyard."

Why not, I do. As do most of my neighbors. We just take turns so that we're not all shooting at once.

State law says 50 feet from a road, 300 feet from a occupied bldg.

Just no Automatics or Silencers. But Guns, AND shooting for hunting, sport and recreation are in DE's Constitution. BTW, we are planning to shoot today if it doesn't rain. I will join in after I feed the kids and wash my truck.

Guess we have bigger back yards than most.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Another one I knew couldn't cope and gave himself a .45 caliber headache.

The one I knew used a 30-30. His wife wound up getting to collect his insurance policy anyway. A win-win more situation for her.

If men are so selfish, why do women control 80% of the wealth in this country?

[DugwayDuke]

If you wish to debate whether Lautenburg is a reasonable restriction, you've lost the argument since you've admitted that reasonable restricitons exist. But, to answer you question, no.