LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in U.S. v. Hayes that a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence is prohibited from owning firearms.
Full decision here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-608.pdf
This is a discussion on USSC Gun Rights Ruling within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in U.S. v. Hayes that a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence is prohibited from owning firearms. Full decision ...
The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in U.S. v. Hayes that a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence is prohibited from owning firearms.
Full decision here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-608.pdf
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.
Rudyard Kipling
Terry
I thought that was already in place, maybe just a state law here in Utah.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson
Array
sigman Luke,
The issue was that the man was not convicted on the basis of a domestic violence statute. The reasoning of the court was that not every state has statutes applying specifically to domestic violence.
The problem with the ruling is that it is within the realm of possibility that you could forever lose your right to bear arms if you were charged with assault in your home, were acquitted of that charge but convicted of some other charge that stemmed from the incident. It isn't likely, but possible (it probably wouldn't stand if it made it to the Supreme Court but you might have to fight it all the way there to find out).
Ryan
Those who will not govern their own behavior are slaves waiting for a master; one will surely find them.
Having not read the original law, I have questions on several points:
1. Was the law written to be retro active?
His conviction was in 1994, the modification that extended the law to include Domestic Violence was done in 1996.
2. Was he subsequently notified that the law had been changed and he was ineligible to possess firearms?
I believe there was a conviction in Texas that was over turned because the defendant was not notified by the court that he was ineligible to possess firearms.
Array
There was also a recent NJ case similiar to the one you described. A man had been accused of DV, and in a deal with the police, agreed to give his weapons over to someone else. Later, a law went into effect that didn't allow anyone accused of DV to possess firearms.
The guy did win in the NJ supreme court, since he couldn't have known at the time he was surrendering his 2A rights for life.
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
