Re: unconstitutional (more info)

More | Report Post

Stewart:
I don't know what state you are in but I ran a Lexis/Nexis check on all
state statutes and found that Indiana has a requirement that defendants be
notified of the loss of firearm rights as a result of a guilty plea to a
DV charge. I did not find any other state with a similar statute but my
search may not have been perfect. Here is the Indiana statute:

Burns Ind. Code Ann.
Title 35 Criminal Law and Procedure
Article 35 Pleadings and Procedure
Chapter 1 Pleas
35-35-1-2. Determination by court - Waiver of rights by defendant.
(a) The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or guilty but
mentally ill at the time of the crime without first determining
that the defendant: ***
(4) has been informed that the person will lose the right to
possess a firearm if the person is convicted of a crime of
domestic violence.

More research and less distractive bickering may lead to a successful
challenge to the DV exclusion in some limited circumstances.
*************************************************************

On 11/23/07, -- wrote:
> Wow--talk about coincidence. Just after I made my previous post, I
> turned on the PBS tv channel and they were discussing the D.C gun case
> pending before the SC. Apparently the last case to be heard on the
> question of whether the 2nd Amend. is a collective state right or an
> individual citizen right was 66 years ago in United States v. Miller,
> 307 U.S. 174 (1939). I need to read Miller to get an informed idea of
> why the current SC is again taking up the issue in Miller 66 years later.
>
> On 11/23/07, -- wrote:
>> 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?