• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Lautenberg Amendment: US v. White: US v. Castleman: Domestic Violence

ManofGod

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
9
Location
Lynchburg
Recently the SCOTUS decided not to hear the gay marriage issue which has resulted in some states allowing it and some not. Please excuse the poor framing of this question but here is what I'm wondering. Why can't Virgina do this with the Lautenberg law? Earlier this year the SCOTUS ruled on the Castleman case. While the VSP initially made an interpretation that this ruling overruled US v white, most gun- rights attorneys particularly one that frequents this forum say it does not. What can be done on a state level to eliminate the threat of a person convicted of a misdemeanor from being disarmed? My neighbor has a conviction on his background from 17 years ago from an ex girlfriend that claimed he threw a wet towel at her and until US vs White he couldn't by a gun via FFL. I think this is an issue that needs attention come MLK day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
A couple of reasons that wouldn't be a good idea and I'm sure there are others.

First, any time you take it to the Federal courts, it's a crap shoot and may have some real nasty unexpected consequences.

Second, it has to meander through the lower courts first and this district is not at all gun friendly.

Third.....it would cost on the low side 30,000.00 and I mean low side, to do this. I don't know of any Va. Organizations that would foot that bill.

We could get davidmcbeth down here to scare the Feds though. :uhoh:
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Recently the SCOTUS decided not to hear the gay marriage issue which has resulted in some states allowing it and some not. Please excuse the poor framing of this question but here is what I'm wondering. Why can't Virgina do this with the Lautenberg law? Earlier this year the SCOTUS ruled on the Castleman case. While the VSP initially made an interpretation that this ruling overruled US v white, most gun- rights attorneys particularly one that frequents this forum say it does not. What can be done on a state level to eliminate the threat of a person convicted of a misdemeanor from being disarmed? My neighbor has a conviction on his background from 17 years ago from an ex girlfriend that claimed he threw a wet towel at her and until US vs White he couldn't by a gun via FFL. I think this is an issue that needs attention come MLK day.
I've discussed this with a few lawyers too, including a prosecutor. They agree that Castleman overrules White, simply because the level of physical force required for an assault to be considered an act of violence is reduced to any offensive touching. The decision only applies to federal law, but if one was able to possess a firearm under White, they would now be prohibited under Castleman.
 

ManofGod

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
9
Location
Lynchburg
I've discussed this with a few lawyers too, including a prosecutor. They agree that Castleman overrules White, simply because the level of physical force required for an assault to be considered an act of violence is reduced to any offensive touching. The decision only applies to federal law, but if one was able to possess a firearm under White, they would now be prohibited under Castleman.

Okay. Your first mistake was talking to a prosecutor about Virginia gun rights – never do that. You are mistaken and so are they. What was decided in the Castleman case was that an offense such as the Tennessee statue that required keyword required bodily injury will suffice as a barr from owning firearms under the L. amendment. Now if you compare and contrast that with the United States versus white ruling you will find that they are apples to oranges. The record of force required to prove even offensive touching is not there in most Virginia convictions. I can explain it more further but I don't want to come off as condescending. Simply put Castleman does not overrule United States v White. Also Castleman admitted in court to being guilty of causing bodily injury to his wife. United States v White deals with the record of force or lack there of . If you to back to the posts from March you will see Users opinion on the matter. Many consider him as I do the top gun attorney in the state. Perhaps he will chime in. My neighbor purchases from FFL dealers without issue and this is after the Castleman ruling. He was convicted of 18.2-57.2. My purpose in this post is not to debate the Castleman issue. Instead we need to figure out what we can do On a state level to avoid the L amendment altogether. Such as taking one's fire arm rights away for a brief period Such as a year then restoring them.
 

ManofGod

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
9
Location
Lynchburg
I've discussed this with a few lawyers too, including a prosecutor. They agree that Castleman overrules White, simply because the level of physical force required for an assault to be considered an act of violence is reduced to any offensive touching. The decision only applies to federal law, but if one was able to possess a firearm under White, they would now be prohibited under Castleman.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-misdemeanor-crimes-of-domestic-violence-quot
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,846
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Okay. Your first mistake was talking to a prosecutor about Virginia gun rights – never do that. You are mistaken and so are they. What was decided in the Castleman case was that an offense such as the Tennessee statue that required keyword required bodily injury will suffice as a barr from owning firearms under the L. amendment. Now if you compare and contrast that with the United States versus white ruling you will find that they are apples to oranges. The record of force required to prove even offensive touching is not there in most Virginia convictions. I can explain it more further but I don't want to come off as condescending. Simply put Castleman does not overrule United States v White. Also Castleman admitted in court to being guilty of causing bodily injury to his wife. United States v White deals with the record of force or lack there of . If you to back to the posts from March you will see Users opinion on the matter. Many consider him as I do the top gun attorney in the state. Perhaps he will chime in. My neighbor purchases from FFL dealers without issue and this is after the Castleman ruling. He was convicted of 18.2-57.2. My purpose in this post is not to debate the Castleman issue. Instead we need to figure out what we can do On a state level to avoid the L amendment altogether. Such as taking one's fire arm rights away for a brief period Such as a year then restoring them.
Mistaken? Indeed!

I didn't discuss Virginia gun rights; I asked about the effect of federal law post Castleman on gun ownership. A conviction under Virginia law is not affected; such a person could still run afoul of federal law. Your neighbor's purchases were approved by VSP, which may have chosen to only view his status in light of Virginia law (which they won't reveal). His exposure to federal law may still exist. I haven't talked with any attorney who is of the opinion that there's no problem with people who bought firearms under White and continue to possess them post-Castleman. They all advise caution where federal law may be the predominant issue (i.e. transporting across state lines).

If there are any apples or oranges in this, it's the distinction between federal and state law.
 

ManofGod

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
9
Location
Lynchburg
Mistaken? Indeed!

I didn't discuss Virginia gun rights; I asked about the effect of federal law post Castleman on gun ownership. A conviction under Virginia law is not affected; such a person could still run afoul of federal law. Your neighbor's purchases were approved by VSP, which may have chosen to only view his status in light of Virginia law (which they won't reveal). His exposure to federal law may still exist. I haven't talked with any attorney who is of the opinion that there's no problem with people who bought firearms under White and continue to possess them post-Castleman. They all advise caution where federal law may be the predominant issue (i.e. transporting across state lines).

If there are any apples or oranges in this, it's the distinction between federal and state law.

So have your attorneys advised to just avoid federal land and crossing state lines etc or to dissolve ownership of guns for someone convicted of 18.2-57.2?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Of course, both violate your RKBA. Its simple: if you are a freeman, you have the RKBA.

WOW...don't need a lawyer to understand that.....
 
Top