Re: unconstitutional

More | Report Post

Kind of sad that we can't discuss legal topics and have differing
opinions without fireworks. The issue of ex post facto in regard to
gun ownership restrictions is a good issue to discuss. There is no
absolute answer as of now. The up coming SC case challenging D.C. gun
restrictions will be the first case the SC has heard in well over 40
years (maybe longer, I have to look it up)involving the applicability
of the 2nd amendment to the various states. It should give all of us
some direction in what to expect for the future of individual gun
rights under the 2nd Amend.

I enjoyed the discussion up till now. It is a relevant legal topic
that law students and professionals alike can benefit from.

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