Supreme Court case on Lautenburg Amendment

I'm not getting over the fact that this isn't an ex post facto issue. Based on the actual question, I don't see how the the Supreme Court would get around the fact that Congress pretty clearly intended this to apply to violent misdemeanors when a spouse or domestic relation was involved.

This is more reason why Lautenberg is just bad law. Anyone who is a wife beater to any serious degree is going to be looking a felony conviction anyway, and GCA 68 already sufficiently took care of that problem.

while the GCA does appear to have had a good end, i still don't agree with the means. you can't justifyably say that you can always ban someone from something. it does not make any sense when you think about it: the exception from the rule becomes, instead of a criminal act, all of the perfectly defensible ones!

a felon that is, in most people's opinion, a complete waste of life, but still remains actually human and alive, still deserves the right of self-defense. otherwise, an even nastier dude can come along and knock off all the competition -- and of course nobody cares because the solution is to put all of the above to death (which is murder, since the state carries it out on all of our behalfs).

again: not to say that the real effects of the GCA were bad, but it banks on the ends justifying the means. when you create that de facto environment of injustice, you encourage more crime! who will trust a system that doesn't actually use its courts to find out when right and wrong have occurred, and instead legislates rights away on behalf of the majority?

The thing that trouble me is, in addition to the post facto, that a frequent element of divorce were charges of domestic abuse as a tactic.

I have friends who were charged and ro's obtained but at the hearing it was shown the complaining spouse trumped the claim. Had the charged spouse pled out b/c it was cheaper and no real punishment would ensue they would have ended up losing the right to arms and self-defense. And with no real recourse to clear the record.

I recall that a good number of government employees were snared in the above scenario and lost their jobs b/c they could no longer have a gun.

Lautenberg is back door gun control law.

This is one of those holdovers from the Clinton reign of terror. You don't even have to be convicted of anything, just be named in a restraining order alleging violence and your firearms rights are gone.

Wouldn't that very ambiguity in the statute have to be read in a way that most benefits the defendant?

Right now how the law reads you can beat your spouse and FOREVER loose your right to posses firearms. If you kill your spouse, serve your time, you can petition the court to get your rights back again.

Go Figure...

You don't even have to beat someone. In my case, my girlfriend said somthing insulting to me in front of a neighbor. I splashed a drink in her face. A shouting match ensued. Neighbor called the police. I get arrested, convicted for DV. Now 16 years later, happily married, with a son. Yet I can't take him hunting. Something I remember so fondly doing with my own father. I guess I'll be fishing for the rest of our time together. Lame.

What bothers me about this case is that nowhere have I found in it that the "Lautenberg Ammendment" has been argued as unconstitutional at any point. Will the Supreme Court even allow the constitutionality of the law to be questioned. Giatras has never raised the question. The other question I have is if the wife of a man wants to own a gun but her husband is banned under Lautenburg for MDV but she didnt know. Are here rights being infringed? Can she posses a gun in her own home? Or does she have to divorce her husband to have the "Bill of Rights" apply to her?

As the 2nd amendment reads that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The last word is the most telling. If you have any doubts what was written look up the definition in websters.