Re: unconstitutional

More | Report Post

You just proved why we don't want people like you to have guns.

On 11/23/07, Stewart wrote:
> 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?