Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: WisLawJournal.com In re domestic abusers, Lautenberg Amendment upheld, 15 July 2010

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    WisLawJournal.com In re domestic abusers, Lautenberg Amendment upheld, 15 July 2010

    http://www.wislawjournal.com/article...endment-upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ziemer, EXCERPT
    The court concluded that three justifications support the statute’s constitutionality: domestic abusers often commit acts that would be charged as felonies if the victim were a stranger, but that are charged as misdemeanors because the victim is a relative; firearms are deadly in domestic strife; and persons convicted of domestic violence are likely to offend again.
    Case: U.S. v. Skoien, No. 08-3770

    For the full article by David Ziemer, please see the July 19, 2010 Wisconsin Law Journal.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Yes, because knives are never used...
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest
    it's never good to abuse the domestics.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    I left a comment on the article...you will know which one when you read it.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  5. #5
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    And the petty little things that are considered domestic "violence" is ridiculous. I knew a guy who was CONVICTED of DV because upon leaving his house, he shut the water off. His wife (or girlfriend, whatever she was) said in court that his actions (turning off the water) "intimidated" her, which, under the law of that state, was enough for a DV conviction.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I'm of the opinion that as a result of the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald that the Lautenberg Amendment won't stand up to constitutional muster if it is ever contested to the SCOTUS level. I ase my opinion on two of my interpretations.

    First: The SCOTUS decision in McDonald stated specific conditions under which an individual can be prohibited from owning firearms. Those conditions involved crimes of felony and persons judged as mentaly unfit to be responsible with a firearm. I don't find where the Court's decision specifically addressed misdemeanor crimes, i.e. crimes of domestic violence, or other misdemeanor crimes as a justification of firearm prohibition. In fact to do so would open a whole new door to firearm confiscation and infringement on the constitutional right of the second amendment. Congress could just keep adding misdemeanor crimes to the "Lautenberg" list until it included people with DUI's, unpaid traffic fines, unpaid child support etc. and eventually total goverment gun control. I'm sure that is not the SCOTUS intent.

    Second: The Lautenberg Amendment is weapon specific. It only addresses firearms and not other weapons commonly used during acts of domestic violence. As such it is obvious that it is aimed at infringing on the second amendment. Why doesn't it address all weapons. Most domestic assaults and abuses don't even use weapons. Many use weapons other than firearms. There is no question that the Lautenberg Amendment is only an attempt at gun control. After Heller and McDonald I feel it is on shaky ground.

    Time will tell.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I'm of the opinion that as a result of the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald that the Lautenberg Amendment won't stand up to constitutional muster if it is ever contested to the SCOTUS level. I ase my opinion on two of my interpretations.

    First: The SCOTUS decision in McDonald stated specific conditions under which an individual can be prohibited from owning firearms. Those conditions involved crimes of felony and persons judged as mentaly unfit to be responsible with a firearm. I don't find where the Court's decision specifically addressed misdemeanor crimes, i.e. crimes of domestic violence, or other misdemeanor crimes as a justification of firearm prohibition. In fact to do so would open a whole new door to firearm confiscation and infringement on the constitutional right of the second amendment. Congress could just keep adding misdemeanor crimes to the "Lautenberg" list until it included people with DUI's, unpaid traffic fines, unpaid child support etc. and eventually total goverment gun control. I'm sure that is not the SCOTUS intent.

    Second: The Lautenberg Amendment is weapon specific. It only addresses firearms and not other weapons commonly used during acts of domestic violence. As such it is obvious that it is aimed at infringing on the second amendment. Why doesn't it address all weapons. Most domestic assaults and abuses don't even use weapons. Many use weapons other than firearms. There is no question that the Lautenberg Amendment is only an attempt at gun control. After Heller and McDonald I feel it is on shaky ground.

    Time will tell.
    Unpaid child support is a felony

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Gleason View Post
    Unpaid child support is a felony
    § 948.22 Failure to support.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    JG:
    I believe that if the deinquency is up to four months it is a class A misdemeanor. If the delinquency exceeds 4 months it is a class I felony.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    This one really bites!

    It is a very troubling case for two reasons.

    1) They use intermediate, not strict scrutiny and in their analysis never provide a rational basis for using intermediate scrutiny for a fundamental right.

    2) They make the facts up for their decision. They are supposed to review at the court of appeals level, but that is not what they do here. Very disturbing indeed to see how many federal judges conduct legal gymnastics in order to allow lots of crap that really is an infringement.

    So sad.

    This is why Alan Gura picks his cases well. Look at the case he just took in North Carolina about the town that declared an emergency and prohibited the carry or sale of guns due to a snow storm prediction!
    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

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    I'm of the opinion that as a result of the SCOTUS opinion in McDonald that the Lautenberg Amendment won't stand up to constitutional muster if it is ever contested to the SCOTUS level. I ase my opinion on two of my interpretations.

    First: The SCOTUS decision in McDonald stated specific conditions under which an individual can be prohibited from owning firearms. Those conditions involved crimes of felony and persons judged as mentaly unfit to be responsible with a firearm. I don't find where the Court's decision specifically addressed misdemeanor crimes, i.e. crimes of domestic violence, or other misdemeanor crimes as a justification of firearm prohibition. In fact to do so would open a whole new door to firearm confiscation and infringement on the constitutional right of the second amendment. Congress could just keep adding misdemeanor crimes to the "Lautenberg" list until it included people with DUI's, unpaid traffic fines, unpaid child support etc. and eventually total goverment gun control. I'm sure that is not the SCOTUS intent.

    Second: The Lautenberg Amendment is weapon specific. It only addresses firearms and not other weapons commonly used during acts of domestic violence. As such it is obvious that it is aimed at infringing on the second amendment. Why doesn't it address all weapons. Most domestic assaults and abuses don't even use weapons. Many use weapons other than firearms. There is no question that the Lautenberg Amendment is only an attempt at gun control. After Heller and McDonald I feel it is on shaky ground.

    Time will tell.
    Lautenburg also extinguishes a fundamental right based not only upon conviction, which must meet a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, but also can be based upon the issuance of a restraining order, which in many states has a more likely than not legal standard.
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    Read the dissenting opinion. It speaks with reason and clarity.
    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

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    If you ever get a restraining order and you still need to carry a gun, make your own gun. Stamp it made in xxxxxxxx (State) and never take it out of state. As long as you are not a felon, what federal law is broken?
    Last edited by Thundar; 07-19-2010 at 05:56 PM.
    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

Posting Permissions

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