Supreme Court will examine Lautenberg anti-gun amendment

[Little-Acorn]

In 1996, a politician named Lautenberg slipped an amendment into a Congressional bill, saying that anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor, if a violent act, must have his right to own firearms permanently revoked. It ignored the fact that Constitutional rights cannot be revoked willy-nilly.

One of the odder results, was that a police officer who had once slapped a suspect around, tackled and threw him to the ground, or had once been convicted ten years ago of assaulting his wife, suddenly found he could not carry a gun on duty. Thouands of seasoned patrolmen and detectives were instantly relegated to desk jobs, often for incidents far in their past.

Now apparently the Supremes will examine a case where someone lost his gun rights due to this Lautenberg amendment, without even knowing it had happened until years later.

It's about time. This case may have even greater impact than the DC v. Heller case currently under review by the USSC, since the Heller case affects only the DC area while this new case concerns a nationwide Federal law that violates the 2nd amendment.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200804300223

City lawyer going before highest court in the land

by Cheryl Caswell
Daily Mail staff
Wednesday April 30, 2008

The case of a Marion County man will go to the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, and a Charleston attorney will become one of a limited number of West Virginia lawyers to argue in that venue.

Troy Giatras will defend Randy Hayes of Mannington, a contractor convicted of a felony gun possession charge, and ask the highest court to clarify Second Amendment right to bear arms.

No matter the outcome of Hayes' case, Giatras will receive the coveted quill presented to all lawyers who come before the U.S Supreme Court.

"It's an honor," Giatras said. "For 99 percent of lawyers, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.

"It's the absolute pinnacle for a lawyer," Giatras said. "Because it's the highest court in the nation."

He expects the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case between October and December.

Out of about 5,000 petitions the court receives each year to hear cases, the justices accept only about 75. Giatras says not that many West Virginia lawyers have argued a case before the country's highest court.

Hayes' case goes back to 1994, when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor battery offense after a dispute with his wife. Ten years later, an argument over their son occurred over the phone between the now-divorced parents and she asked police to go to his home.

When they searched Hayes home, an old Winchester rifle given to him by his father was found under a bed. Hayes didn't know it, but a 1996 amendment to federal gun laws made it illegal for him to possess the gun because of his prior misdemeanor offense.

Giatras was retained two days before Hayes was expected to plead guilty to the gun charge in federal court.

"We halted the entire process in March 2005," Giatras said. "Because he only pleaded guilty in 1994 to battery, not domestic battery. But the federal court interpreted it as domestic battery because it was against a family member."

"In 1994 and in 1995, he was legally able to have a gun," Giatras said. "The 1996 law was applied to him retroactively, but he didn't even know it."

The case proceeded through the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond in October 2006 and the court reversed the earlier decision. But the U.S. Justice Department appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court agreed last month to hear the case.

Giatras said the case is important because it will further define the right to own a gun and also addresses the issue of laws affecting citizens retroactively.

[diuretic]

I remember when that happened, being a long-time member on a police email discussion list, it caused all sorts of grief for some individual police officers and their departments. Most of the problems, it seems, arose from cops who had been accused (or dealt with) of domestic violence (which is a bit sad of itself but another topic).

Anyway, it's a good thing to get laws like this reviewed, there's always the chance of the unintended outcome when any piece of legislation is put in place.

[Little-Acorn]

Anyway, it's a good thing to get laws like this reviewed, there's always the chance of the unintended outcome when any piece of legislation is put in place.

The issue isn't whether the outcome was unintended. It's whether it is unconstitutional to legislate away peoples' right to own and carry guns.

And yes, it's unconstitutional.

The more justices we get on the Court who obey and uphold the law, rather than trying to decide "what's best for the country", the better off we will be.

Deciding "what's best for the country" is Congress's job, not the Courts'. The best the judges can do, is decide how Congress's laws apply to certain tricky cases, and whether the law is overruled by a higher law (i.e. the Constitution).

[Little-Acorn]

Docket number can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-608.htm .

[Joe Steel]

The issue isn't whether the outcome was unintended. It's whether it is unconstitutional to legislate away peoples' right to own and carry guns.

No problem.

The US Constitution doesn't declare an individual right to guns.

[Little-Acorn]

No problem.

The US Constitution doesn't declare an individual right to guns.

I've lost count of the number of times little joesteel has been corrected on this. Don't see the point in doing it again, aside from pointing out that the 2nd Am says the people's right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

Back to the subject:
The Supremes will finally examine one of the sillier anti-gun laws, that strips people of this Constitutional right without even any trial or other due process. Not that due process is a qualifier either, the 2nd simply says the right can't be taken away, period.

Can you imagine a law that said people would permanently lose their right to vote (another Constitutionally-protected right) if they ran an ad telling a lie about any candidate? That would be about the equivalent of this Lautenberg law. People would scream bloody murder over the voting law, but somehow people like Lautenberg have no problem with the gun law he managed to pass.

[Joe Steel]

I've lost count of the number of times little joesteel has been corrected on this.

Let me help: zero (0.)

[Abbey Marie]

No problem.

The US Constitution doesn't declare an individual right to guns.

Hey Joe,
If you don't like the rights fought for and guaranteed to us by our founding fathers, perhaps you would be happier in a country with serious restrictions on personal freedoms.

[Joe Steel]

Hey Joe,
If you don't like the rights fought for and guaranteed to us by our founding fathers, perhaps you would be happier in a country with serious restrictions on personal freedoms.

What's your point?

An individual right to guns isn't among the personal freedoms established by the US Constitution.

[Abbey Marie]

What's your point?

An individual right to guns isn't among the personal freedoms established by the US Constitution.

:laugh2:
Tell us- what does your copy of the Constitution have in place of the 2nd Amendment- a blank space or a comic strip?

[theHawk]

No problem.

The US Constitution doesn't declare an individual right to guns.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed."

The right of the people isn't an individual right? :poke:

[Little-Acorn]

little joesteel might be keying on the term "declare" and "established" - terms that he himself inserted into the debate over individual rights in the Constitution. The Const doesn't create the rights, as everyone knows. It simply commands that government can't interfere with them. As such, it implies that people had those rights long before the Constitution was written.

little joe probably said "declare" and "established" so he could change the debate to whether the Constitution CREATED the rights - a subject not even open to sensible debate - rather than debate whether people HAVE the right to KBA at all. I get the feeling he does this simply to create controversy, no matter how inane.

Back to the subject:
The Lautenberg amendment was one of the sillier examples of liberal paranoia over guns. The idea that they can control lawbreakers who threaten, injure, and kill innocent people with guns, by passing laws only law-abiding people will obey, is a classic example of the liberals' complete shortsightedness.

And the fact that their laws cannot possibly work, is a completely separate issue from whether those law are even legal. In fact, laws like the Lautenberg amendment flatly violate the 2nd amendment's prohibition on government infringing on people's right to keep and bear arms.

[Joe Steel]

:laugh2:
Tell us- what does your copy of the Constitution have in place of the 2nd Amendment- a blank space or a comic strip?

There's your problem!

You've got the NRA's version.

[Joe Steel]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,shall not be infringed."

The right of the people isn't an individual right? :poke:

No.

"People" is a collective noun referring to citizens as the sovereign.

[Joe Steel]

little joesteel might be keying on the term "declare" and "established" - terms that he himself inserted into the debate over individual rights in the Constitution. The Const doesn't create the rights, as everyone knows. It simply commands that government can't interfere with them. As such, it implies that people had those rights long before the Constitution was written.

little joe probably said "declare" and "established" so he could change the debate to whether the Constitution CREATED the rights - a subject not even open to sensible debate - rather than debate whether people HAVE the right to KBA at all. I get the feeling he does this simply to create controversy, no matter how inane.



Wrong, little nut.

Generally, rights are created by laws, constitutions and judicial decisisons. The notion of natural rights is bunk.

[diuretic]

Wrong, little nut.

Generally, rights are created by laws, constitutions and judicial decisisons. The notion of natural rights is bunk.

When people bang on about God-given rights it enters the realm of superstition and gets really bloody stupid because all kinds of hysterical claims are made about God giving people rights which is really confusing to the argument.

You're going to get a few of them.

If someone wants to prove that human rights are God-given then they have to prove God exists and that God gave humans those rights. If they can't do that they then can safely be ignored. Not that it will stop them.

I do favour the idea that human rights evolved, just as humans evolved, I find that much more persuasive.

Right then, I suppose we can get ready for a big blue :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

When people bang on about God-given rights it enters the realm of superstition and gets really bloody stupid because all kinds of hysterical claims are made about God giving people rights which is really confusing to the argument.

You're going to get a few of them.

If someone wants to prove that human rights are God-given then they have to prove God exists and that God gave humans those rights. If they can't do that they then can safely be ignored. Not that it will stop them.

I do favour the idea that human rights evolved, just as humans evolved, I find that much more persuasive.

Right then, I suppose we can get ready for a big blue :laugh2:

The problem at the heart of the issue is the confusion of "interests" and "rights." All humans have natural interests; food, shelter, property, etc. When the community sanctions the pursuit of the interests, it creates rights.

We could say, for instance, that an individual has an interest (defined as a relationship between some object, tangible or intangible, and his own welfare) in guns. When the community agrees that the possession of gun would be acceptable, either because it has no effect on the community's welfare or that possession of a gun enhances it, the community will create a right to have a gun by passing a law. Until it does, no "right" to have the gun exists even though the "interest" remains.

Making the difference in the two clear is difficult.

[Abbey Marie]

When people bang on about God-given rights it enters the realm of superstition and gets really bloody stupid because all kinds of hysterical claims are made about God giving people rights which is really confusing to the argument.

You're going to get a few of them.

If someone wants to prove that human rights are God-given then they have to prove God exists and that God gave humans those rights. If they can't do that they then can safely be ignored. Not that it will stop them.

I do favour the idea that human rights evolved, just as humans evolved, I find that much more persuasive.

Right then, I suppose we can get ready for a big blue :laugh2:

I would not presume that natural rights are God-given rights. I think they can be the same, but are not necessarily so.

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the thread's being hijacked again, this time to where our rights come from.

Back to the subject:
The Lautenberg Amendment is a violation of the 2nd amendment, and it's kind of surprising it's taken this long to get to the Supreme Court. It could be that the plaintiffs were judge-shopping, if you will, waiting until judicial activists like O'Connor were gone, and their case could be heard before justices who actually uphold existing law instead of inventing new law. Though it takes quite a while for such a case to get through lower courts andfinally wind up at the Supreme Court's door - the process could have been started long before O'Connor left.

This case could have greater impact than the Heller case now being considered by the court. That case was over only a ban on handguns in DC, where the Lautenberg case is over a ban on ALL guns for people anywhere in the country, who have misdemeanor convictions or are simply under restraining orders (such restraining orders are routinely given out during divorce proceedings, even when no physical violence or threat is involved at all).

[Abbey Marie]

Looks like the thread's being hijacked again, this time to where our rights come from.

Back to the subject:
The Lautenberg Amendment is a violation of the 2nd amendment, and it's kind of surprising it's taken this long to get to the Supreme Court. It could be that the plaintiffs were judge-shopping, if you will, waiting until judicial activists like O'Connor were gone, and their case could be heard before justices who actually uphold existing law instead of inventing new law. Though it takes quite a while for such a case to get through lower courts andfinally wind up at the Supreme Court's door - the process could have been started long before O'Connor left.

This case could have greater impact than the Heller case now being considered by the court. That case was over only a ban on handguns in DC, where the Lautenberg case is over a ban on ALL guns for people anywhere in the country, who have misdemeanor convictions or are simply under restraining orders (such restraining orders are routinely given out during divorce proceedings, even when no physical violence or threat is involved at all).


I understand your frustration, LA. Joe Steele denies there is a 2nd Amendment. For him, it only exists, if at all, in certain misguided people's copies. It's impossible to have an intelligent debate when you are faced with such an illogical state of mind.

[Little-Acorn]

I understand your frustration, LA. Joe Steele denies there is a 2nd Amendment. For him, it only exists, if at all, in certain misguided people's copies. It's impossible to have an intelligent debate when you are faced with such an illogical state of mind.

No frustration here, Abbey. Sometimes excitable children wander off the sidewalk into the street, and you need to gently guide them back before they get hit by something bigger and faster-moving than they are. Most of them eventually get the idea, learn from it, and need no further guidance. And they become big and fast themselves.

And a few don't. In such cases, patience and compassion are the best medicine. No frustration needed.

[manu1959]

The problem at the heart of the issue is the confusion of "interests" and "rights." All humans have natural interests; food, shelter, property, etc. When the community sanctions the pursuit of the interests, it creates rights.

We could say, for instance, that an individual has an interest (defined as a relationship between some object, tangible or intangible, and his own welfare) in guns. When the community agrees that the possession of gun would be acceptable, either because it has no effect on the community's welfare or that possession of a gun enhances it, the community will create a right to have a gun by passing a law. Until it does, no "right" to have the gun exists even though the "interest" remains.

Making the difference in the two clear is difficult.


iteresting.....then no one had any right to anything prior to the existance of a comunity and the passing of a law giving one that right ....

[diuretic]

I would not presume that natural rights are God-given rights. I think they can be the same, but are not necessarily so.

Fair enough.

No need to worry Acorn, I usually exercise a bit of thread discipline over myself :laugh2:

[Joe Steel]

iteresting.....then no one had any right to anything prior to the existance of a comunity and the passing of a law giving one that right ....

For the most part, yes. The only exception to the rule involves interests which are fundamental to humanity; for instance, life itself. Most humans would agree, without a law or any other written instrument, that each human can act to preserve human life. I would call that a "conventional" right. That is, it exists by human convention or agreement without having been formally declared.

[Joe Steel]

Amazingly, Little Nut not only doesn't know what he's talking about, he doesn't know what he's said.