Re: unconstitutional

More | Report Post

How about I start volunteering my time by knocking the snot
bubbles out of you. Did your mama ever wash your smart arse mouth
out with soap. You are a big talker behind your screen aren't you,
I can garuntee that if we were face to face you would not have
much to say. I hope you don't talk to your clients like that, if
you do, you will be one hungry and very sh**ty lawyer. Hey do you
know what they call a sunken ship full of lawyers? A good start...

On 11/23/07, Curmudgeon wrote:
> Stewart, have you ever considered volunteering your services to
> the NRA? They've paid millions of dollars to thousands of
> constitutional scholars and lawyers who, apparently, aren't as
> bright as you. I'm sure they'd appreciate your contributions to
> the field.
>
> On 11/22/07, Stewart wrote:
>> 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?