Oral argument in US v. Hayes

Wow...that was painful. ;)

So, what is the underlying question regarding the Lautenberg Amendment that is at hand?

If I understand by inference, since it didn't appear it was spelled out, it seems that the defendant/respondent was convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery, and the victim was his wife/ex-wife. However, he was not convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence.

However, he had firearms, was arrested and charged for violating Lautenberg and being a prohibited possessor. His argument is that the statue narrowly constricts only those that were convicted of domestic violence, not misdemeanor A&B.

Government's position is that because the victim was the guy's wife/ex-wife/etc. (as defined by Lautenberg), that his conviction makes him a prohibited possessor even though it wasn't DV, but simple A&B.

They also briefly touch on "Lenity", which I am unsure I understand, but seems to discuss the concept that counsel has to notify the client of something bad which might happen if they do something...in this case, take a plea bargain for misdemeanor A&B. Defendant should have been told he'd lose his RKBA. Is that right?

Well, if this happened BEFORE Lautenberg passed, how could he possibly been advised? So perhaps a little of the ex-post-facto element is being brought up???

Does that about sum it up? :)

DOH, you explain it in your paragraph. If I only had learned to read. :)

Hello. And Bye.

Reading that argument made me dizzy... I probably should go look up the statute and try to parse it, which would make reading this argument easier. But then i would want to read the argument again, and i doubt my brain could do that without a meltdown...

Okay, here is an interesting link:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/03/scotus-takes-ne.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922(g)(9).html

921(a)(33)
(a) As used in this chapter—

(33)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C),[2] the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that—

(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal [3] law; and

(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

922(d)(9)
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

922(g)(9)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

What if he would have pleaded down to Disturbing the peace? Would he still lose his gun rights??

Scalia scoffed at the idea of losing rights due to a "mere misdemeanor."

We certainly aren't with the 2A where we are with the 1A, or the 4A.

So, what does it all mean? I couldn't find anything in the transcript that says they came up with a ruling. Is there a ruling? Did they reword 922(g)(9) or 921(a)(33)?

The issue of the loss of the RKBA due to a misdemeanor, as in MA,whose statutes mirror in many ways the federal laws, also has has a reach back provision to prohibit persons from firearms licensing and possession if ever convicted of any crime that could carry with it a sentence of a year is horrible and flies in the face of expo facto.
Imagine for example that you could lose a right guaranteed under the bill of rights, for actions that were settled decades ago on arbitrary law sentencing rules that can be not only increased in the penalties paid, but applied retroactively.
Example:( while not a constitutional guarantee, this is only used to show how ex post facto may apply) The legislature increases the fine for speeding from $50.00 to 1000.00, and the statute had the reach back provision, and you had not had a speeding ticket in a year, but had 20 in the past 25 years, and the government says that you now owe the balance of the new fines as they reached back into your past to assess the new fine, and if not paid you face life long loss of driving privileges, but jail time too. How would that be viewed? The outrage would be massive and no court would uphold it as fair or constitutional. Driving is a privilege, and not a right. Is a guaranteed right under the Constitution any less assaulted by similar laws?
MA has no specific domestic violence statute, but the person is charged with misdemeanor A&B they lose the RKBA and the attorney defending the accused will not in all probability if court appointed, advise the accused of the loss of his or her rights if they take a plea bargain.
If you read the founders and framers,(with some limited exceptions) EVERY GUN CONTROL LAW IS BASICLLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.