Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: SCOTUS to hear another gun case

  1. #1
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...014&sc=179



    (03-24) 08:26 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

    The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider the case of a man who successfully challenged firearms possession charges that were linked to alleged domestic violence.


    The federal government had asked the justices to step into the case.


    In 1994, Randy Edward Hayes pleaded guilty in Marion County, W.Va., to the minor crime of battery following an incident in which his wife was the victim. In 2004, police summoned to Hayes's home in response to a domestic violence 911 call found a Winchester rifle belonging to Hayes. They later discovered that he had possessed at least four other rifles following the 1994 case.


    Hayes was indicted on federal charges of possessing firearms following conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence, a reference to the 1994 case in West Virginia.


    Last year, Hayes convinced the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., to dismiss the indictment against him.


    The appeals court ruled in Hayes' favor because the language of the state law on battery in the 1994 case did not contain specific wording about a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim.


    Nine other appeals courts have rejected the interpretation that the appeals court in Richmond adopted, the Justice Department solicitor general said in court papers.


    "Congress's objectives of taking guns out of the hands of persons convicted of these crimes would be frustrated in significant measure" if the decision in the Hayes case is allowed to stand, the Justice Department solicitor general said in court papers.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=hayes

    In the second grant Monday, the Courtagreed to hear a Justice Department appeal in U.S. v. Hayes (07-608), urging it to clarify the federal law that makes it a crime to have a gun after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The specific issue is whether the federal ban at issue requires that the convicted individual and the victim in the underlying crime have a domestic relationship — that is, as a spouse, parent or guardian.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,244

    Post imported post

    Thank GOD that Heller came to the court before this case. The last thing we would've needed was to have the first gun case in 70 years be about a guy convicted of domestic violence.

    Edit

    I hope the federal law gets overturned on the grounds that there's no federaljurisdiction. This isn't interstate commerce. Possessing a gun is neither interstate nor commerce.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Huh.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    OK, domestic abuse sucks especially if the guy has anger management issues, and he still may be a class 3dirtbagbut he's stillnot a convicted felon.

    That makes me think (and that's never good...) Here's another angle:

    When SCOTUS rules the RKBA to be an individual right, convicted felons who have paid their debt to society, still lose their right to bear arms for defense. Since it's been clearly established by the courts (and right here also) that LEO's have noduty to protect and even in a best case scenario have a 4-6 min response time, isn't the continued witholding of the RKBA then nothing more than a continued punishment for those who have already paid their debt?

    When faced with an armed criminal, does not thenthe legislated and adjudicated inability to properly defend ones selfproperly with equal force,a form of cruel and unusual punishment by leaving you unarmed in the face of an armed criminal?

    Some would saypoetic justice, just deserts,irony, karma, whatever. But what of the guy that has truly reformed? What of those that truly ARE innocent and wrongfully imprisioned. Whatof those whose crimes had NOTHING to do with firearms?

    Punishment to fit the crime, right? Perhaps if you ABUSE your gun rights, you THEN lose your gun rights.

    Use a gun in a crime? Forfeit RKBA. Butfelonious tax evasion? Doesn't make any sense to me to have their RKBA and right to self defensepermanently removed as it wasn't gun related.



  6. #6
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    OK, domestic abuse sucks especially if the guy has anger management issues, and he still may be a class 3dirtbagbut he's stillnot a convicted felon.

    That makes me think (and that's never good...) Here's another angle:

    When SCOTUS rules the RKBA to be an individual right, convicted felons who have paid their debt to society, still lose their right to bear arms for defense. Since it's been clearly established by the courts (and right here also) that LEO's have noduty to protect and even in a best case scenario have a 4-6 min response time, isn't the continued witholding of the RKBA then nothing more than a continued punishment for those who have already paid their debt?

    When faced with an armed criminal, does not thenthe legislated and adjudicated inability to properly defend ones selfproperly with equal force,a form of cruel and unusual punishment by leaving you unarmed in the face of an armed criminal?

    Some would saypoetic justice, just deserts,irony, karma, whatever. But what of the guy that has truly reformed? What of those that truly ARE innocent and wrongfully imprisioned. Whatof those whose crimes had NOTHING to do with firearms?

    Punishment to fit the crime, right? Perhaps if you ABUSE your gun rights, you THEN lose your gun rights.

    Use a gun in a crime? Forfeit RKBA. Butfelonious tax evasion? Doesn't make any sense to me to have their RKBA and right to self defensepermanently removed as it wasn't gun related.

    I know someone that wrote a bad check and the person pressed charges. He couldn't afford a lawyer so he plead guilty.

    He cannot own a gun. Solely based on Felony is just stupid.

    Question, who is the one of the biggest lobbyist against making DV charges a Felony? Fraternal Order of Police... Something like 1 in 4 LEOs have domestic violence charges against them at one time or another.


  7. #7
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Is battery the same as domestic violence? That is the question before the court. I think that they are different.

    The underlying problem here is that the Federal Government has stuck its nose in where it does not belong. The Federal Government cannot possibly write laws at the federal level that interpret the laws of all 50 states equally.

    More generally,I think that the Federal gun laws are unconstitutional, butthen again I think it is pretty easy to read and understand the constitution.





    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    More generally,I think that the Federal gun laws are unconstitutional, butthen again I think it is pretty easy to read and understand the constitution.
    Seems to be a clearly written.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    OK, domestic abuse sucks especially if the guy has anger management issues, and he still may be a class 3dirtbagbut he's stillnot a convicted felon.

    That makes me think (and that's never good...) Here's another angle:

    When SCOTUS rules the RKBA to be an individual right, convicted felons who have paid their debt to society, still lose their right to bear arms for defense. Since it's been clearly established by the courts (and right here also) that LEO's have noduty to protect and even in a best case scenario have a 4-6 min response time, isn't the continued witholding of the RKBA then nothing more than a continued punishment for those who have already paid their debt?

    When faced with an armed criminal, does not thenthe legislated and adjudicated inability to properly defend ones selfproperly with equal force,a form of cruel and unusual punishment by leaving you unarmed in the face of an armed criminal?

    Some would saypoetic justice, just deserts,irony, karma, whatever. But what of the guy that has truly reformed? What of those that truly ARE innocent and wrongfully imprisioned. Whatof those whose crimes had NOTHING to do with firearms?

    Punishment to fit the crime, right? Perhaps if you ABUSE your gun rights, you THEN lose your gun rights.

    Use a gun in a crime? Forfeit RKBA. Butfelonious tax evasion? Doesn't make any sense to me to have their RKBA and right to self defensepermanently removed as it wasn't gun related.
    +1

    I've tried to argue that on here before... and wasn't very successful, IIRC.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Joliet, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    237

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    OK, domestic abuse sucks especially if the guy has anger management issues, and he still may be a class 3dirtbagbut he's stillnot a convicted felon.

    That makes me think (and that's never good...) Here's another angle:

    When SCOTUS rules the RKBA to be an individual right, convicted felons who have paid their debt to society, still lose their right to bear arms for defense. Since it's been clearly established by the courts (and right here also) that LEO's have noduty to protect and even in a best case scenario have a 4-6 min response time, isn't the continued witholding of the RKBA then nothing more than a continued punishment for those who have already paid their debt?

    When faced with an armed criminal, does not thenthe legislated and adjudicated inability to properly defend ones selfproperly with equal force,a form of cruel and unusual punishment by leaving you unarmed in the face of an armed criminal?

    Some would saypoetic justice, just deserts,irony, karma, whatever. But what of the guy that has truly reformed? What of those that truly ARE innocent and wrongfully imprisioned. Whatof those whose crimes had NOTHING to do with firearms?

    Punishment to fit the crime, right? Perhaps if you ABUSE your gun rights, you THEN lose your gun rights.

    Use a gun in a crime? Forfeit RKBA. Butfelonious tax evasion? Doesn't make any sense to me to have their RKBA and right to self defensepermanently removed as it wasn't gun related.

    +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

  11. #11
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    I just recently learned that felons only lost their RKBA in the GCA of 68. MAybe it's time to revisit the issue and restore the RKBA to nonviolent offenders.

    As for battery being a test case for SCOTUS, crime and punishment has a lot to do with Const. law. Miranda, Miller, Roe come to mind.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •