Lautenberg under fire

[tombogan03884]

Remember the "Lautenberg amendment" That deprives a citizen of his 2A rights for a MISDEMEANOR of "domestic violence" ?

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_09-2009_08_15.shtml#1250211510

The Tenth Circuit divided 2-1 today whether the constitutionality of
   banning guns for persons who have been convicted of a domestic
   violence misdemeanor. The issues arises because federal prosecutors
   petitioned for a Writ of Mandamus, to stop a Utah district judge from
   employing a jury instruction which the prosecutors did not want. The
   issue was whether a domestic violence misdemeanant can be criminally
   convicted for possessing a gun if the jury decides that he poses no
   threat of violence, after the defendant raises the issue as an
   affirmitive defense.
   In case no. [1]09-4145, Judges Hartz and Kelly voted to issue the Writ
   of Mandamus which the prosecutors had sought. Judge Murphy dissented,
   and would have set the issue for briefing.
   The case involves two separate issues: first, whether the federal d.v.
   gun ban is constitutional in all circumstances, and second, whether
   the answer to the first question is so clear as to make mandamus
   appropriate. On the second question, at least, I think Judge Murphy
   has the better argument, although the majority opinion has some valid
   points.
   As for Judges Hartz and Kelly, who authored the majority opinion to
   issue the writ, Judge Hartz's record on the Second Amendment suggests
   hostility to the right. Judge Kelly's record, in contrast,
   demonstrates that he takes the right seriously, and attempts to apply
   it conscientiously to the cases at bar. (As detailed in my Denver
   University Law Review article, [2]The Second Amendment in the Tenth
   Circuit: Three Decades of (Mostly) Harmless Error, which was recently
   cited in a concurring opinion by Judge Tymkovich in [3]United States
   v. McCane, upholding the felon-in-possession statute.)

References

   1. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-4145.pdf
   2. http://law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/v86-3/Kopel.pdf
   3. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-6235.pdf

[jaybet]

Lautenberg should be wearing a diaper being fed tapioca through a straw. He was an idiot when he had half his wits about him.

[tt11758]

Lautenberg should be wearing a diaper being fed tapioca through a straw. He was an idiot when he had half his wits about him.

And that was about 70 years ago.

[Pathfinder]

Damn, I thought this was going to be about mortars at 500 yards.

[tt11758]

Damn, I thought this was going to be about mortars at 500 yards.

Patience, Path.  All good things come to he who waits. 

[Sponsor]