Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 09:47 PM
Original message
Gun Rights Don't Apply In Domestic Violence Cases, Appeals Court Rules
Source: CBS News

Last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment did not, contrary to what you may have heard at the time, resolve very much.

Unanswered are questions about carrying firearms in public, gun sales on government property, firearm registration, guns in government housing, handgun restrictions that aren't exactly the same as the District of Columbia's, zoning and gun stores, and so on. And so far, at least, lower courts have been overwhelmingly hostile to gun owners' rights.

The latest example is a decision late Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which said that a criminal defendant may not be allowed to present a Second Amendment defense to a federal jury in Utah. It came after the appeals court granted an extraordinary emergency appeal, called a writ of mandamus, from the Justice Department after the district judge agreed to allow those jury instructions.

The defendant, Rick Engstrum, has an earlier misdemeanor domestic violence conviction and has been charged with possessing a firearm in violation of a federal law that applies to anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." He has pleaded not guilty.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/14/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5243308.shtml?tag=stack



Good. Anyone involved in domestic violence shouldn't have a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. The comments on the link are priceless.
Edited on Fri Aug-14-09 09:54 PM by madeline_con
They don't even realize they're missing the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Author did not read DC v. Heller.
"Unanswered are questions about carrying firearms in public, gun sales on government property, firearm registration, guns in government housing, handgun restrictions that aren't exactly the same as the District of Columbia's, zoning and gun stores, and so on. And so far, at least, lower courts have been overwhelmingly hostile to gun owners' rights."

BUT SCOTUS said in Heller:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. THANKS! Clarity is SO IMPORTANT these days,
and I'm very concerned that in all complex matters, the public and the press are not interested in or capable of going there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greennina Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Considering most of those people only have guns to terrorize women...
this is a great thing! In fact, married men shouldn't be allowed to have those things unless their wives agree. That would really cut down on DV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Solomon-like wisdom . . . !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Ummmm I certainly want to think that this comment was sarcastic. nt
Edited on Fri Aug-14-09 11:07 PM by kelly1mm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack_DeLeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. It would probably cut down on marriage...
which I suppose alot of guys are already okay with these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. LOL! You are aware that men, other than married ones, are sometimes
involved in domestic violence. The possession, or lack of, a gun has nothing to do with it.

You are aware that there are thousands of men (and women) who not only own firearms of various types but are NEVER involved in domestic violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. Like so many other things, this is not always black and white....I
have the same charge on me, misdemeanor domestic violence. My SO at the time was drunk, we had an argument, he had me backed into a corner, I pushed him so I could get out. Because he was drunk he lost his balance and fell, hitting the corner on his way down causing a bruise on his back. He called the sheriff, I got charged. The sheriff even said he knew the score but because he (SO) was the one who called I was the one who got charged.The judge said he didn't fall because he was drunk he fell because I pushed him, didn't want to hear why. SO tried to get the charges dropped after he sobered up, they wouldn't let him. This was about 15 years ago. I am probably the most anti-violent person around but I will not stand by and be abused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly1mm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. And now you cannot exercise your 2nd amendment rights!
Yeah for zero tolerance! Yeah for not letting judges, you know, judge! Sure hope (I really do) you never feel you were in a position to need a firearm for self defense against a stalker, ex or just general purpose because you are too violent and dangerous to have a firearm now because so says the U.S. Government! I HATE this law!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vadawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. This is what i hate about the domestic violence laws as they are written
they take away disrection from the officer to make a rational decision, i understand why they were put in place but unfortunately like all zero tolerance laws a lot of people get snagged up in the system who really shouldnt be. In a lot of ways the sex offender laws are a boondogle in the same way..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. Wrong, as usual. Domestic violence is when you most need a gun
People are more likely to be killed in domestic violence, or injured, than in any other life situation. Its the one situation where I would sanction people having guns readily available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. self defense in not limited to firearms
If one feels unsafe, other options include baseball bats, knifes, swords, crossbow pistols and various electrical shock weapons and sprays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-15-09 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
13. rights
no right is absolute (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater etc).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC