POLITICS - RKBA Lautenberg (finally) being challenged!

[Old Ironsights]

In 1996, a politician named Lautenberg slipped an amendment into a Congressional bill, saying that anyone convicted of even a misdemeanor, if a violent act, must have his right to own firearms permanently revoked. It ignored the fact that Constitutional rights cannot be revoked willy-nilly.

One of the odder results, was that a police officer who had once slapped a suspect around, tackled and threw him to the ground, or had once been convicted ten years ago of assaulting his wife, suddenly found he could not carry a gun on duty. Thouands of seasoned patrolmen and detectives were instantly relegated to desk jobs.

Now apparently the Supremes will examine a case where someone lost his gun rights due to this Lautenberg amendment, without even knowing it had happened until years later.

It's about time. This case may have even greater impact than the DC v. Heller case currently under review by the USSC, since the Heller case affects only the DC area while this new case concerns a nationwide Federal law that violates the 2nd amendment.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200804300223

City lawyer going before highest court in the land

by Cheryl Caswell
Daily Mail staff
Wednesday April 30, 2008

The case of a Marion County man will go to the U.S. Supreme Court later this year, and a Charleston attorney will become one of a limited number of West Virginia lawyers to argue in that venue.

Troy Giatras will defend Randy Hayes of Mannington, a contractor convicted of a felony gun possession charge, and ask the highest court to clarify Second Amendment right to bear arms.

No matter the outcome of Hayes' case, Giatras will receive the coveted quill presented to all lawyers who come before the U.S Supreme Court.

"It's an honor," Giatras said. "For 99 percent of lawyers, it's a once in a lifetime opportunity.

"It's the absolute pinnacle for a lawyer," Giatras said. "Because it's the highest court in the nation."

He expects the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case between October and December.

Out of about 5,000 petitions the court receives each year to hear cases, the justices accept only about 75. Giatras says not that many West Virginia lawyers have argued a case before the country's highest court.

Hayes' case goes back to 1994, when he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor battery offense after a dispute with his wife. Ten years later, an argument over their son occurred over the phone between the now-divorced parents and she asked police to go to his home.

When they searched Hayes home, an old Winchester rifle given to him by his father was found under a bed. Hayes didn't know it, but a 1996 amendment to federal gun laws made it illegal for him to possess the gun because of his prior misdemeanor offense.

Giatras was retained two days before Hayes was expected to plead guilty to the gun charge in federal court.

"We halted the entire process in March 2005," Giatras said. "Because he only pleaded guilty in 1994 to battery, not domestic battery. But the federal court interpreted it as domestic battery because it was against a family member."

"In 1994 and in 1995, he was legally able to have a gun," Giatras said. "The 1996 law was applied to him retroactively, but he didn't even know it."

The case proceeded through the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond in October 2006 and the court reversed the earlier decision. But the U.S. Justice Department appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court agreed last month to hear the case.

Giatras said the case is important because it will further define the right to own a gun and also addresses the issue of laws affecting citizens retroactively.

"You make a decision based on what the law is, as opposed to what it will be in the future," he said.

"In the end, it could provide justice not just for Randy Hayes, but others who have been caught this way."

To prepare for presenting his case, Giatras will argue before moot courts in West Virginia and at Georgetown University Law School.

"We submit briefs, attorneys sit as fake judges, you do the argument, they question and grill you and then they give you a frank critique," he said.

While arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court is an honor, it's also quite a challenge, Giatais said.

"The other side is represented by the U.S. Solicitor General," he said. "All they do is argue professionally for the government."

"I've already visited the Supreme Court to acclimate myself," Giatras said. "It's very similar to the West Virginia Supreme Court. It was the same architect, the same layout."

Giatras said organizations and individuals can submit Amicus briefs summarizing their opinions in his case.

"Any interested party can submit those," he said. "They'll begin to come in around June. I've already had pro-gun groups and family groups say they want to weigh in. You have to file a brief and have a lawyer."

Another prominent gun law case, referred to as the Heller case, has attracted the attention of many gun control and gun rights activists. He expects the Hayes case to generate much of the same interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the Heller case by the end of June.

Giatras, 43, is a graduate of Duquesne University and West Virginia University School of Law. He was admitted to the state bar in 1990.

Contact writer Cheryl Caswell at cher...@dailymail.com or 348-4832.

[Hobie]

I even had a couple of soldiers with such problems. They had pled guilty or no contest in such cases associated with their divorces. Seems that accusations of domestic violence are common now when females attempt to get good divorce settlements.

[Hobie]

I even had a couple of soldiers with such problems. They had pled guilty or no contest in such cases associated with their divorces. Seems that accusations of domestic violence are common now when females attempt to get good divorce settlements.

[505stevec]

Its about time this stupid law was challenged. This law is so fragrently a violation. in that it was also a Ex Post Facto Law. it punished for crimes you have commited previously. This should be a good one.

[Old Ironsights]

Beyond ex-post facto, the fact that it kills your RKBA for a misdomeaner is even more rediculous. They are charging kids with DV for fighting with their sibs these days. This was a total attempt to expand the GCA to exclude everybody but Jesus...

Oops. He was charged with whipping up on a bunch of moneychangers too.

I guess it's down to Buddha and Gahndi.

[JimT]

It's about time. My gripe with all the pro-gun organizations is that this should have been fought tooth and nail years ago.

[DixieBoy]

Good post OI. Hobie's right too. An all too common occurrence these days in divorces is for a spouse to claim violence - even if none ever took place - because it immediately places hardships on the man. In some cases, if it leads to a restraining order, your firearms must be surrendered right then.

This is a really good reason for single guys to be extremely careful about who they date, as well. If I woman decides she wants to hurt you, she can very easily put your right to own a firearm legally in jeopardy. In the aftermaths of many breakups there is bitterness (duh!) and some unscrupulous women will look to hit a guy where it hurts. All she needs to do is claim that she is scared, and that "he has guns." Then watch your worst nightmares begin to come true.

I had a close friend who went through a divorce after his wife decided to be single again. I know for a fact that there'd been no violence. But the fact that my friend was a shooter, and that the woman had no scruples, put my buddy in a world of hurt. It cost him almsot all he had to return to normalcy.

We have Lautenburg to thank for this, as well as all the other good people who've been put through the ringer by his evil amendment. I hope it gets tossed out quickly. - DixieBoy

[AJMD429]

I heard of one case where the guy couldn't have guns in the house, because they'd be "in possession" of his wife, who had ten years earlier scratched the hood of her then soon-to-be ex-husband's Corvette with her car keys while he was standing there arguing with her, he punched her, she slapped him, and both pled to the misdemeanor vs. hassling to fight it. So the "ban" evidently can extend to family members even.

Ridiculous law. I agree with JimT

[Old Ironsights]

I heard of one case where the guy couldn't have guns in the house, because they'd be "in possession" of his wife, who had ten years earlier scratched the hood of her then soon-to-be ex-husband's Corvette with her car keys while he was standing there arguing with her, he punched her, she slapped him, and both pled to the misdemeanor vs. hassling to fight it. So the "ban" evidently can extend to family members even.

Ridiculous law. I agree with JimT

Wasn't the forum embroiled in a bruhaha about the stupid "possession" (actual and constructive) malum prohibitum of the 68 GCA just a few months ago vis-a-vis "mental illness"...?

Hmmm. It all seems vaguely familiar...

[Harry O]

It's about time. My gripe with all the pro-gun organizations is that this should have been fought tooth and nail years ago.

The NRA was involved in a court case to challenge this a few years ago. Unfortunately, they chose someone who was charged AFTER the Lautenberg law was passed. They should have gotten a person who was charged BEFORE the law was passed. The NRA lost their case.

I am glad in some ways that the challenge to the DC gun ban was done by someone other than the NRA. They cannot seem to choose their case well. That means a an awful lot on whether or not you win in court. They choose loser cases, waste money on them, and establish a precedence AGAINST gun owners. They have done this over and over.