Skip to comments.Supreme Court to hear a Lautenberg Amendment Case
Posted on 10/02/2013 2:19:29 PM PDT by marktwain
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Castleman, a Tennessee case involving the Lautenberg amendment that deprives individuals of second amendment rights if convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
James Alvin Castleman plead guilty to a crime of domestic assault in 2001, then in 2008 he was found in possession of firearms and convicted of illegal possession of firearms under the Lautenberg amendment.
A federal judge said that the Tennessee law did not meet the requirements of the federal law for domestic violence, and dismissed the charges. The Sixth Circuit, on appeal, upheld the findings of the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, is appealing the decision of the Sixth Circuit to the Supreme Court.
Justice Elena Kagan is not participating in this case.A similar case in Wisconsin has resulted in the only appeal to a refusal to grant a concealed carry permit since the State passed its concealed carry reform in 2011.
Why is it interesting that Kagan is not participating?
Kagan is generally regarded as a reliable “progressive” vote for more government power. If she is not participating, a 4-4 split means the decision stands, and much of the nasty Lautenberg amendment becomes unconstitutional as it has been applied.
No more losing your constitunal rights for a lifetime because of the accusation that you yelled at your girlfriend.
This is the same SCOTUS that gave us ObamaTAX.
Anyone really think they’ll uphold the Constitution?
As far as I’m concerned, denying someone from having a firearm because of any police record is not only unconstitutional, its stupid.
Any man, legal or not can get a firearm if he really wants one.
Removing Kagan from the mix gives a good shot at it.
Lautenberg is horrendous! I hope that this case can force an end to the federal taking of ones constitutional right over a state judged misdemeanor.
I have a facebook page that is an about forum to discuss this particular law.
“an open forum”
Given Scalia's defense of precedence and justification of the War on Drugs in Raich, where he approved federal regulation ostensibly derived from the commerce clause to apply to non-commerce… I wouldn't be so sure.
The big problem is that the court really doesn't care about the Constitution and will sing and dance and rewrite ("reinterpret") until they get the answer they want.
“The big problem is that the court really doesn’t care about the Constitution and will sing and dance and rewrite (”reinterpret”) until they get the answer they want.”
I hope you are wrong, but I fear that you are right.
I know a guy that had an ex-girlfriend use this as a weapon to virtually ruin him. Turned his life upside down. His lawyers couldn’t believe it.
The constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment is not raised in this case. The issue is whether the particular Tennessee law under which the defendant was convicted counts as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" within the meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment. The petition for certiorai is here.
Given the current state of FEDERAL over-reach , it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that you could loose your 2nd amendment rights
after being convicted in municiple court for " Wreckess driving ", or a disregard for safety .
Look how the allegation of "domestic abuse" was used in the Zimmerman marital debacle ; it was an allegation that gave the plaintiff power
even though it was later withdrawn; the harm was already done !
Is it illegal for criminals who have used knives in violent crimes to own a steak knife and use it to cut up their T-Bone??
Lautenberg was passed by a GOP congress......
Yes, I remember. The pressure by the MSM was intense. It was also passed before the Heller decision.
I still have to study this issue. But the above line got my attention. The problem that I have with the federal law for domestic violence is the following. Noting that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Clause 2 of Article VI, applies only to powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution, I can't think of any constitutional statute that clearly indicates that the states have ever delegated to the feds the specific power to address domestic violence.
And since the Constitution is silent about domestic violence, the 10th Amendment clarifies that such issues are uniquely state power issues.
So I surmise that the federal judge is doing nothing more than regurgitating the constitutional indoctrination that many students get in law school.
hooray for this..
it would take all my fingers and toes to count the number of people i know who’s ex wives have cost them the right to hunt, bear and keep arms..
the domestic violence act is just another way for a woman to control a man..
how many men have made their ex wifes unable to purchase or possess firearms??
answer is... ZERO..
time to end this game of who files what first...
The problem with a court challenge to Lautenbergs application is that the ATF decision to deny the purchase of a firearm is an administrative decision. A court sentence for the crime of DV does not specify that defendant is “hereby sentenced to lose firearms”.
So it is not considered an “ex post facto” situation, or a penalty for a crime you have already been sentenced for.
The only way this law goes down is a direct challenge to the written law itself. Does the federal government have the ability to order the agency in charge of background checks to deny an individual the right to own firearms solely on a state judged misdemeanor crime conviction? Is that constitutional?
Its obvious I am not a lawyer.....so please no bashing of my logic if I am way off base with the ex post facto line of reasoning. ;)
It is an utterly frustrating ordeal that no one should ever have to go through.
I know. I was denied for years the ability to purchase due to an assault crime I was convicted of 24 years ago being mislabeled as a DV crime.
In the end I won. Too many others lose everyday.
For most part don’t hope for anything intelligent from the SC. The majority ass hats are political hacks and do not support the Constitution but their liberal anti American partners.
I tell anyone with this issue to just buy a gun through any avenue they can.
I hear the ATF has guns for sale all over Mexico at reasonable prices.
Very, Very few. I have heard of cases, so I assume that a few have gone through. The bias against men in domestic violence cases is enormous.
I recall reading of feminists in California lobbying the legislature to change the law so that investigating officers would have to make an on the spot decision about who instigated the violence. They felt that too many women were being taken in on domestic violence charges.
The story was that after the legislature passed the law, the number of women being arrested for domestic violence tripled. If may be apocryphal. I do not have a link.
I have read considerable research about domestic violence. Most is described a “dance of mutual destruction” with instigation about equal between men and women.
This SCOTUS also gave us Heller. Yeah, good chance for the good guys.
you have given a politically correct answer..
wonem, with the help of their lawyers, will do ANYTHING i a divorce case to win..
they will lie, they will cheat, they will steal..
go to the local friend of the court, and take a look at the magazines on the tables..
i personally know of women who showed up at the soon to be ex husbands door, hit themselves in the face and called the cops..
husband arrested and charged with “domestic violence”..
and a judge will NEVER imprison a mother of children for disobeying a court order...EVER...
domestic violence laws are as uncontitutional as drug laws..
only socialists support them..
Some men also lie, cheat, and steal. However, the courts tend to be heavily biased against men.
So tell me, how was my answer politically correct?
after re-reading your post, the answer to your question is....
i do not know....
must be getting old... :)
Aren’t we all!