Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« David Keene: Obama will overreach | Main | Interesting approach by OR sheriff »

Oral argument in US v. Hayes

Posted by David Hardy · 10 November 2008 06:48 PM

Available in pdf here. Government contends the federal bar on gun possession after misdemeanor DV conviction applies to a person who was convicted of ordinary battery, not requiring as an element that it was against an intimate partner, so long as the government can show at the federal trial that it was against an intimate partner.

Impressions: the Solicitor General's advocate shows speed and mettle, but by page 10 knows she has probably lost Scalia and Ginsberg (that combination hurts!) and CJ Roberts. By p. 14 she's lost Kennedy. P. 16, maybe Stevens, too.

Then the defendant's attorney gets up, and they climb on him, too. Breyer is leaning the other way, and possibly Ginsberg and Alito. Kennedy gets in a good and very true line -- "It seems to me that although this statute is a mess anyway..."

Rebuttal: government has definitely lost Roberts and Scalia, the rest are unclear.

11 Comments | Leave a comment

Tim Weaver | November 10, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply

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? :)

Tim Weaver | November 10, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply

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

XRumerTest | November 11, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply

Hello. And Bye.

Jim | November 11, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply

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...

Jim | November 11, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply

Okay, here is an interesting link:

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

Carl in Chicago | November 11, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply

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.

DJK | November 11, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply

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

Carl in Chicago | November 11, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply

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.

cosmo | November 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply


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)?

JFM Mass. | January 29, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply

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.

Digitising Services | April 24, 2016 11:15 PM | Reply

Very thoughtful article that covering all dimensions of the field. It helps me to set objective and achieved desired goals. http://www.digitemb.com/

Leave a comment