Re: unconstitutional

More | Report Post

On 11/24/07, Stewart wrote:
> Who said I don't/can't own a
firearm? You do what you normally do
on
> here and that is assume. I own
many weapons and possess many awards
> for marksmanship. I was a police
officer for over 15 years, also a
> range master. My point was that
the law isn't right, but once again
> your smart remarks get people off
the subject. You are probably some
> little weasle lawyer that weighs
145 pounds soaking wet and was beat
> up in school daily, while being
the towel boy for the football team.
I
> hit that one right on the head now
didn't I little man. No need to
> respond, as I will not read not
respond to you in the future. No
need
> in wasting my breath.
>
>
> 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...

I thought DON Narpolione said
that??? That guy from sissylerly.

>>>
>>> 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?