Posted on 06/19/2002 6:03:30 PM PDT by RogueIsland
Upon the announcement of the decision, the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a group that worked closely with the Clinton White House, sent out a press release hailing the decision and claiming it to be a victory for the VPC position that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.
"Today's Supreme Court action is a victory for public safety and security and a defeat for the National Rifle Association and gun criminals, who have been chomping at the bit for the Supreme Court to overrule its own precedent on the Second Amendment.
Although I disagree with their characterization, I believe that the SCOTUS decision to deny certiorari to Emerson made it plain that they were not ready or willing to take up the matter of what has been called the Lautenberg Amendment. The VPC believes the decision is a positive development in their quest for the total abolition of private firearms ownership and unfortunately I have to agree. This ruling is a bad for those agree with the original decision by Judge Sam Cummings issued in 1999 and believe the Lautenberg amendment to be flawed and unconstitutional. Cummings wrote:
"It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizens Second Amendment rights, particularly when neither the judge issuing the order, nor the parties nor their attorneys are aware of the federal criminal penalties arising from firearm possession after entry of the restraining order. That such a routine civil order has such extensive consequences totally attenuated from divorce proceedings makes the statute unconstitutional. There must be a limit to government regulation on lawful firearm possession. This statute exceeds that limit, and therefore it is unconstitutional."
The Lautenberg amendment, passed in 1994, turned domestic misdemeanor offenses into the equivalent of a federal felony, thus denying anyone, who had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense such as a threatening a spouse, of ever owning a firearm. It even made the offense retroactive. Anyone who had ever pleaded guilty to such a misdemeanor became unable to own or use a firearm in his/her occupation. Finally it made possession of a firearm while under a restraining order a federal felony offense.
This was a politically correct law ostensibly designed to cut down on domestic violence and spousal abuse. It accomplished two things: reducing the number of persons eligible to own firearms and making federal felons out of many police officers, military personnel, and law-abiding gun owners, like Dr. Emerson. In fact the cases that have come before the courts have expanded the Lautenberg amendment even further than envisioned by the Congress. Now the courts have ruled that any statutory definition of domestic violence can be used to enforce this law even if there is no actual violence that meets the actual Lautenberg definitions. Thus even an argument can be cause for losing one’s gun rights.
Additionally the courts have ignored the provision that requires defendants to be informed about the Lautenberg provisions before the defendant acquiesces to a domestic violence misdemeanor guilty plea.
SCOTUS by upholding the Fifth Circuit decision has sentenced Dr. Timothy Emerson to another trial. When the government appealed Judge Cummings decision, the Fifth Circuit court decided last year that Cummings’ opinion on the Second Amendment was correct but disagreed with his declaring the Lautenberg amendment unconstitutional. The judges stated the government could place limitations on that right, reinstated the federal indictment against Emerson, and remanded the case to the District Court for trial. Emerson appealed the reinstatement of the federal indictment to SCOTUS and lost.
William Meteja, the federal prosecutor who stated that the Second Amendment is only applicable to persons serving in the National Guard with weapons used in the Guard, has already told the defense attorney he will go to trial.
This will be Emerson’s second trial. He was acquitted of two felony charges in a court case brought by the state of Texas. Thus the Supremes have gotten out of a decision on the constitutionality of the Lautenberg amendment for quite a bit longer.
It was one of those gutless Court decisions. The issue is clear and Cummings stated it succinctly. Yet, gun control is a hot political topic and no one wants to get near it. The politicians are staying away across most of the country, while the courts are staying as far away as possible. While anti-gun prosecutors like William Meteja are taking advantage of the hiatus to garner more innocent scalps on their belts. It seems our courts are forgetting the presumption of innocence.
Because -- let's face it -- excepting a few Freepers -- we have a gutless Population.
The Bush administration asked that this case NOT Be taken because it would be lost. Kennedy and O'Conner would go against the 2nd amenmdent giving the anti gun people a huge 6/3 victory.
I can't believe the fools who think that if they can just get a case before the court, it will rule as they like. It would almost certainly reduce the 2nd amendment to nothing.
That's kind of my take on it, but I do wish the court would strike that infernal Lautenberg Amendment. It's like leaving Jim Crow laws on the books.
"We believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right but your individual right exists only to the point we say it does." He specifically argued that the Lautenberg amendment was constitutional.
That is exactly what Ted "Lautenberg amendment supporter" Olson argued before this court. "Make no mistake about it" that's exactly what he argued.
They can take all of their "individual right" arguments and stuff them in their phoney asses, as they could give 2 craps about anyone's "individual right".
I voted for GWB due to his pre-election pro-2nd Amendment stance, just like I voted for his dad in '88.
And just like with his dad, his anti-2nd Amendment activities once in office will cost him my vote next time.
Dubya better figure out what his dad didn't. Five or six million gun owners will either stay home or vote for a third party rather than him if he ignores their rights.
I did, most of my friends did, and I'll do it again. I simply won't hold my nose and vote for someone who trashes the 2nd Amendment, no matter what party he represents.
No kidding...Pataki lost my vote, and W. is dangerously close...
But, you're asking them to think. They can't do that right now, they're too busy bashing President Bush.
And these people think that the Democrats are going to treat their rights any better?
These people need to understand that by "sending a message" like this, they might as well just go ahead and vote Democratic.
Great strategy. It hands the election to the gun-grabbers.
These people need to understand that by "sending a message" like this, they might as well just go ahead and vote Democratic.
No, a Democrat in the office will be no better. But we know a Democrat will be gunning for the 2nd Amendment and the gun rights people will be watching him like a hawk. Under a Republican president, people get complacent.
And if a Republican president is going to sell us down the river too, why vote for either of them?
Sure, there's education policy, foreign policy, abortion, and a bunch of other things to worry about. But none of them matter if the people of the US have no ability to resist.
Once the 2nd Amendment is gone, nothing else will matter because you won't have any leverage at all over the government.
"The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: ``To bereave a man of life...or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.''
Hamilton, Federalist 84
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.