Re: unconstitutional
Posted by Stewart on 11/22/07

BY, thank you for the well thought out response and thank you
for not responding like an arse the way the idiot did. I have
to say that you did not use the term "is not a criminal
punishment per se". The words and intent an ex post facto
claus encompasses every law that changes the punishment and
inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the
crime when committed. 'Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386,
390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). The Lautenberg amendment
does just that... it creates a greater punishment after the
fact by changing the punishment. One is punished by not being
able to own a firearm if he/she was convicted of a misdemeanor
DV. If they were NEVER convicted then the Lautneberg amendment
would not apply to them, therefore it does violate the ex post
facto claus.
On 11/20/07, -- wrote:
> Loss of gun rights under the Amendment you refer to [The
> Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968,
> effective 30 September 1996] allows for the "collateral
> consequence" of the loss of the right to own a gun.
>
> I agree that it sounds like a thin distinction but it is
> pretty much a part of law from way back. A "collateral
> consequence" is not a criminal punishment per se.
>
> There are literally hundreds of statutes rules and
> regulations in every state and also under federal law that
> impose "collateral consequences" for a criminal conviction.
I
> just completed a compilation of all "collateral
consequences"
> in our state as part of a national project to identify and
> catalogue "collateral consequences" in all 50 states. I
> found over 200 in our state alone.
>
> For example; if you want to get a license to operate
a "blind
> vendor outlet" in a state building, you may not have a
> conviction involving moral turpitude within the last 5
years;
> a methamphetamine conviction will get you booted out of
> public housing; any felony conviction will prevent you from
> getting a Realtor's license---on and on---
>
> Courts do not have to notify you of any possible "collateral
> consequences" if you enter a guilty plea with the exception
> of the effect it may have on deportation proceedings--that's
> the only one considered more than a mere "collateral
> consequence."
>
> Not saying I agree with the Amendmant but it is unlikely to
> be found unconstitutional or overturned on other grounds
> anytime in our lifetime.
>
>
> On 11/20/07, Stewart wrote:
>> The Lautenberg Amendment sounds to me to violate many
>> amendments of the U.S Constitution. What does everyone
>> think? What can we do as citizens to get this law recended
>> so we citizens can have our rights back. I mean what if you
>> plead guilty in 1994 to D.V and then this law comes around
>> 3 years later, would you have plead guilty if you knew this
>> waa coming? They say that this amandment is not an ex post
>> facto law because you are not being punished again for the
>> crime. But if not for the original crime, they could not
>> keep you from a fire arm. So this law does bounce off the
>> original charge, thus making it ex post facto. Why can't
>> judges see this?

Posts on this thread, including this one

• unconstitutional, 11/20/07, by Stewart.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/20/07, by Curmudgeon.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/20/07, by Stewart.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/20/07, by --.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/22/07, by Stewart.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/23/07, by --.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/23/07, by Curmudgeon.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/23/07, by Stewart.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/23/07, by Curmudgeon.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/23/07, by --.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/23/07, by --.
• Re: unconstitutional (more info), 11/24/07, by --.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/24/07, by Stewart.
• Re: unconstitutional, 11/25/07, by v.