• 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.

Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that a DV incident in any one of the several states is a federal issue. But, this is just me.

The DV incident, in and of itself, is not a federal issue.

The Lautenberg Amendment (which you should go research) took the Commerce Clause as the basis for being able to control the purchase/possession of a firearm tat had moved in interstate commerce.

If all y'all would just pay attention, it would not be necessary to explain this over and over again. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The DV incident, in and of itself, is not a federal issue.

The Lautenberg Amendment (which you should go research) took the Commerce Clause as the basis for being able to control the purchase/possession of a firearm tat had moved in interstate commerce.

If all y'all would just pay attention, it would not be necessary to explain this over and over again. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

stay safe.
The Lautenberg Amendment makes a DV incident in one of the several states a federal issue, else The Lautenberg Amendment would be unenforceable in any one of the several states. The application of punishment for a DV incident in one of the several states is retained by that state except for the loss of a citizen's RTKBA which is mandated by the feds. I'm confident that many of the several states have a similar mandate contained within their law books.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for stressed veterans and alleged domestic abusers.

Online gambling is a class C felony in my state. Which I wonder how they know?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that a DV incident in any one of the several states is a federal issue. But, this is just me.

I don't see it listed in the enumerated powers. The twisting of the interstate commerce clause is a lame excuse from the Feds.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Online gambling is a class C felony in my state. Which I wonder how they know?

I don't see it listed in the enumerated powers. The twisting of the interstate commerce clause is a lame excuse from the Feds.
NSA.....

Consider the revocation of gun rights as a tax, to be paid with the forfeiture of private property, or the revocation of the ability to acquire new/used private property. See John Roberts and his view of the taxing powers of congress.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The Lautenberg Amendment makes a DV incident in one of the several states a federal issue, else The Lautenberg Amendment would be unenforceable in any one of the several states. The application of punishment for a DV incident in one of the several states is retained by that state except for the loss of a citizen's RTKBA which is mandated by the feds. I'm confident that many of the several states have a similar mandate contained within their law books.

We probably need to schedule a seminar on laws and how they are constructed. But for now, let's leave it as:

You stated "The Lautenberg Amendment makes a DV incident in one of the several states a federal issue,...." That is wrong because of the way you phrased it.

1) The DV charge is a state matter. The feds do not care about whether or not you assaulted/battered someone who you share a domestic relationship with.

2) The DV conviction is the conditional event that triggers application of the provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment, which addresses interstate commerce of firearms. The Lautenberg Amendment does not add any additional penalty to the person conviced of DV, no matter how hard you try to say it does. The Lautenberg Amendment, in essence, merely states that persons convicted, in state court, of a specific offense, are subjected to a specific set of restrictions involving the interstate commerce of firearms.

The distinction between the two is vitally important, just as the case on point makes the commission of an act of actual violence vitally important even though the court decision will have no impact on anybody else than the plaintiff/defendant.

The distinction is why lawyers (persons versed in the law and understanding its meaning and application) become involved in cases such as this, and why attorneys (persons allowed to charge/accept anything of value in exchange for expressing an opinion about what a law means or suggesting a specific course of action to another, as well as being allowed to sit in front of the bar and actually argue with the judge about what the law means) are needed to resolve this situation.

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I defer to you regarding the veracity of the federally mandated revocation of the right to own a gun as not being a additional penalty.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Bullstuff. The author of that article is lying about the charge. There is no such thing as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that does not involve force and violence.

The Sup. Ct. is not going to do anything that ends the Frank Lautenberg ban on possession by those convicted of "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence". The reason that provision does not apply is because the misdemeanor complained of in this case is not such an offense. Neither assault nor battery require proof of force and violence, which is the basis of the federal prohibition.

Assault doesn't involve touching of any kind, and battery requires only the slightest touch if that touch is unprivileged, offensive, and done without legal cause, justification, or excuse. There's one case in which the driver of a car was the victim of a battery because a pedestrian didn't like how far he'd driven into a crosswalk before stopping, and slapped the hood of the guy's car. No force or violence against the driver at all. Patting a stranger's bottom in a crowded shopping mall is battery, but there's no requirement for force or violence.

Ma Kettle whacking Pa upside the head with a frying pan would be a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence EXCEPT under Virginia law, such an offense would be tried in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court ("J&DR"), a "court not of record", which only retains its files for ten years, and as to which the warrant would probably say "...that one Ma Kettle did, on or about October 1, 1933, assault and batter one Pa Kettle, a household partner, spouse, or family member, in violation of Virginia Code section 18.2-57.2." So there is almost never a record of such offenses in Virginia. The exception is where someone files a transcript of the evidence with the case, and there's testimony about actual force or violence, or where the case is appealed to the Circuit Court which is a court of record.

There are a few cases in Virginia where this issue has been dealt with. The variation between what the law dictates and what the NCIS background check dictates is due to the failure of the NCIS people to follow the law.

And what's this stuff about selling guns on the "black market"? Is Va. Gun Trader website the Virginia "black market"? Is there such a thing as a "black market", other than those operated by people employed by three-letter-agencies? If I sell an item of personal property to another resident of my state, am I engaged in a "black market" transaction? What a load of crap.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
If you are a freeman, walking about us, you have the right to own, possess, and carry.

If you committed a crime and free now, you have paid your debt to society and you should be whole again.

Agreed.

Furthermore, if you're still a danger to society, two things are true:

1. No law will stop you from obtaining a firearm, if that's what you want to do.

2. You should still be incarcerated, because no law will stop you from obtaining a firearm, if that's what you want to do.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Hopefully this gets resolved to the satisfaction of the Constitution. Here in Kentucky you can get a misdemeanor DV conviction even if there is no injury to support the claim of DV. The domestic violence statutes are in serious need of refining. I'm all for protecting those that need protected, but when someone can call the police and say they were "shoved" (without any evidence mind you) and have the person that allegedly shoved them arrested, then our system is damaged.

The Supreme Court also needs to differentiate between violent felonies and other non-violent felonies. An individual should not be barred from possessing firearms for non-violent felonies. This should be done by Congress, but we all know that will never happen.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is protective orders. A spouse, girlfriend, live-in friend, etc. can get a protective order, and once issued a judge can remove your right to keep and bear arms at the stroke of a pen. Keep in mind that no assault has to happen in order to have a protective order issued -- probable cause means nothing when a judge considers such an order.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
If a sales tax must be levied and is not you are "dealing" in the black market. Not saying it is right regarding a private transaction between citizens.
 
Top