The government argues that because of his guilty plea to misdemeanor battery Hayes is not allowed to own a gun. But Hayes and his lawyer disagree. They say it's not fair to apply a law that was passed in 1996 to an offense that happened in 1994. They also say Hayes plead guilty to a state misdemeanor battery charge, which is different from a federal domestic violence misdemeanor.
That would be "the government" that reports to "The Vote Freedom First President" who gun owners put in power.
If there were any justice, SCOTUS would rule for Mr. Hayes. Which is why I predict they will refuse to hear it without comment.
UPDATE: Eating my own words has never been more delicious. Mmm....mmm, that's good eatin'. (And I should have read the article I linked to more closely, because it says it too. My total negligence while trying to hurry on to something else.)
Thanks, Bill. Now let's hope they do the right thing and I can keep it down.
Doesn't the application of the Lautenberg Amendment in this case violate the "Ex Post Facto" prohibition clause in Article I, Section 9?
ReplyDeleteSeems pretty straightforward to me.
That's the argument many of us were making when this obscenity was first proposed, debated and passed, anon.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason, tyrants aren't worried about what's Constitutional any more.
I would be unsurprised if the Court were to grab the ex post facto handle as a means of dodging the Second Amendment question without being (metaphorically, Officer Krupke) pilloried. However, IANAL.
ReplyDeleteWe all remember how we stopped playing with the kid who liked to change the rules in the middle of the game.
ReplyDeleteThis is no game.
This is the canary in the coal mine.
Funny, the local paper had a BIG story about frogs becoming endangered by climate change.
David, the court has already agreed to hear the case, as per the link from KABA this morning:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.com/News/200804300223
Here's a real legal problem for the law going retroactive. The houses of congress do hold court trials. When they pass laws its like a court room. The speaker of the house is like the judge and people acting as lawyers for both sides of the issue speak to the members who will vote up or down on the issue.
ReplyDeleteSo for the houses of congress to pass a law to re-sentence an American citizen/s the houses of congress in effect held a trial before re-sentening people.
With this logic which is spot on how it is. There's no way Frank's gun laws are not anything but double jeopardy. The houses have no legal means or right to re-sentence American citizens without passing unlawful double jeopardy laws. Being said, can congress pass new laws retroactively that takes away people's Constitutional rights of free speech if they have every been convicted for spary painting a walll. These people are no longer allow to own or be in contact of a computer, paper, pens, etc. If congress can pass laws rectroactively to take away citizens Constitutional rights then they can pass laws of a conviction of any petty crime (spitting on the sidewalk) to take away the Second Amendment. But not just the Second Amendment, it can be any one of the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.
We have a huge problem with this law going rectroactive.
Here's one for you guys on how I feel the USSC is going to rule on the DC case.
ReplyDeleteThe USSC justed ruled that a state can demand to see a government ID before someone can vote. Voting is a big time Constitutional Right. What I believe they are going to do is rule that the folks in DC can and do have a right to own hand guns. But! They will say these people need to have permits to do be able to own hand guns. The USSC will say many states have citizens have permits for CWL. This will rule on the DC case without changing any current laws but for maybe assault weapons. Which will be owned only with a permit. So it will lead to gun registration with states demanding a permit which will be a photo ID.
So DC will be the first state to have photo ID's for handguns under this ruling and a person will need to list the hand gun with law enforcement.
The voter's having to show an ID to vote was a huge flag as to how the High Court will rule. They paved their way with a different ruling to justify their actions. Lawyers call this case law.
Keep in mind when analyzing "ex post facto" issues that, according to the Supreme Court, the ex post facto prohibition only applies to criminal law. It does not apply to civil law like torts or contracts. However, the dividing line between Criminal and Civil law for the purposes of ex post facto analysis is not always easily drawn.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, the Constitution does not limit ex post facto laws to criminal issues. This interpretation was invented by the Supreme Court, and I am strongly opposed to it.
When I was a 19 year old paratrooper with the 82nd airborn (1983) I cam home from a feild assignment to find my then 18 year old wife missing. I suspected where she was and when I showed up at his doorstep an altercation started (which of us started it remains in dispute) in which he was hurt and in tryin to pull me off of him she was hurt. I was arrested and charged with breaking and entering (which I did not do) and assault (maybe I did) but when the entire story came out I plead quilty to tresspassing (with differed adjutication on the assualt) and paid a $50 dollar fine. that was my one and only brush with the law. I will be 43 in June and I still am not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. The NCIC has me listed as a convicted felon. I am not and never have been.
ReplyDeleteIf we get a good strong simple decision in the DC case this guys chances improve dramatically.
ReplyDeleteLets pray for that!
Scott
Phx
O.K., texasred, I gotta ask: are you a Marty Robbins fan? That name is in "Big Iron".
ReplyDeleteDavid, are you saying that you made an ASS out of U and ME? Are you saying that you are *gasp* HUMAN? ;o)
ReplyDeleteCrotalus, you are the first to figure that out.
ReplyDeleteYes I do carry my Big Iron even though I am not supposed to. I hope it never comes to it but I suppose that someday that will be my second brush with the law
Tex, a lawyer can have the judge remove your single and only petty crime from the record.
ReplyDeleteSo long as it's fully removed and not there for law enforcement to view and totally removed, gone forever. You are clean and back to square one and able to start helping the economy.
If you haven't you owe it to yourself to see a lawyer who deals in such matters. Good luck.
I have been extremely lucky. I grew up in several violent environments and defended myself quite often. Never arrested.
ReplyDeleteAn ex-wife set four guys on me in Tx. They got their asses handed to them. I am not nice when pushed too far. The sheriff was called and said he was going to arrest me. I said he wasn't. He didn't.