Whole enchilada unconstitutional? We can only hope.The Lautenberg Amendment isn't the only problem, but it is a problem.
Also, can the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to have Lautenberg kicked in the testicles? Or would that raise separation of powers issues? - "Jim W" in a comment to Lautenburg Amendment going to Supreme Court at Of Arms and the Law
Let me say up front that if someone is physically abusive and found so by a court then due process is served. This case appears to be ex post facto. Second, a restraining order is not ajudication of physical threat. Restraining orders seem to have become a divorce tactic.
Finally, the law that needs to be given judicial review under the Heller precedent is 18 USC section 922(g)(1) in its entirety:
It shall be unlawful for any person -Any crime punishable by a term exceeding one year.
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) who is subject to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Any.
Have any idea how many crimes today can get you a sentence of "more than one year"?
Well, for example, remember those cheerleaders?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.