A federal appeals court in Denver, CO, has ruled against Wyoming in a lawsuit over a state law that seeks to allow people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to regain their gun rights, according to The Billings Gazette and Associated Press...Here's BATFU all worried about technicalities again, and willing to see you die in the name of procedure.
The Wyoming Attorney General’s Office has said that Wyoming courts expunged 63 misdemeanor convictions from 2005 through last October 2007. Only one person with an expunged record had gone on to receive a state-issued concealed weapons permit as of last October...
The ATF said that conviction records weren’t truly expunged if they were kept on the books for any purpose.
Anybody have info on the 10th Circuit Appeals Court panel judges involved, or the district Judge Alan Johnson, who initially ruled against the state? Like who appointed them? I'll need to look around when I get some time, but for now can't help noticing one of the Wyoming District Court's three missions is:
To represent the District of Wyoming in a manner that will instill trust in the Judiciary.
Oops. Flubbed that one up, Alan.
And there's one other question I don't hear too many raising, so would appreciate any and all who wish to add their voice in asking:
Why aren't the Brady Campaign and anti-gun politicians who have been going nuts over DC been consistent in their demands for "home rule"? You'd almost think that's just a convenient ploy to gin up outrage with, that they really don't give a damn about it unless it serves their purposes...
[Via Jeffersonian]
4 comments:
The Heller case is the first time I have ever heard anyone apply the concept of "home rule" to anything other than counties within states. I prefer the term "autonomy". It will never be anything like the "home rule" found in the Kingdom, due to constitutional mandates and protections.
My suggestion is that AJs stop using "home rule" when writing about this country.
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1175
Johnson, Alan Bond
Born 1939 in Cheyenne, WY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Wyoming
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on October 22, 1985, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed by the Senate on December 16, 1985, and received commission on December 17, 1985. Served as chief judge, 1992-1999.
I've been watching this for a while now and it seems pretty plain that the legislature of Wyoming could have avoided the whole controversy if it hadn't tried to play games.
Now, remember that I don't expect either logic or real intelligence from ANY government activity in the long run, but it seems obvious that if Wyoming had simply eliminated the "record" there would not have been any problem or lawsuit to start with.
What is the purpose of maintaining ANY "record" of a misdemeanor charge? That this charge was bogus to start with is not the point.
So, I'm left to wonder what the real purpose there is to any of this. Who gained anything at all?
Sometimes, mamaliberty, these misdemeanor charges are more than just a shouting match. If there's a record of conflict in a home, it would do well to have the record available should something worse happen.
So, if someone manages to get away with a few slaps with just misdemeanors, and then sends their spouse to the hospital, knowing about those previous incidents could be useful.
Lautenburg however, says that shouting at your wife can cost you some of your rights. The twist was to let people who've had a shouting match that got to loud keep their rights, but to make sure there's a paper trail so that later incidents can be looked at in perspective.
It wouldn't have been necessary without Lautenburg, but until we manage to do away with that, it's gonna be an issue.
Post a Comment