• 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.

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

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2010/07/19/Lautenberg-Amendment-upheld

David Ziemer said:
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.
 

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Captain Nemo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
1,029
Location
Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

J.Gleason

Banned
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,481
Location
Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
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
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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!
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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:
Top