Furthermore, I went through the hiring process for major law enforcement agency and passed everything. The testing process includes backgrounds, QAP, Psychological testing, and a lie detector test; and I owned up and explained my past entirely. I expunged my record per 1203.4 as well as 12021 (c) thinking that it would grant my gun rights back, I was wrong.

I have done everything that I could possibly do to prove that I am a productive citizen (job for 10 years, BS degree, married with a baby girl, and a new home owner). I would be even willing to join military branch and fight for my country in order to prove my patriotism and worth as a United States citizen.

When I was charged with the DV I was under the assumption that I would be able to own a gun after a 10 year ban, I was never told that I would lose my rights forever. My ex-girlfriend even wrote a character letter where she expressed her confidence in me obtaining my Second Amendment right back. My last court appearance was to try and petition for a Corum Nobis and that failed; and I had the backing of my ex girlfriend and my background officer from the agency that I applied with come in my support.

I am the type of person that will never give up because I know that I am worthy of a second chance at a dream. In conclusion, I take responsibility for my past wrongs and I do believe in punishing people that commit DV but there should not be a life sentence on a fundamental right, especially if a person shows that he/she has learned and has grown from the mistake’s that he/she committed in the past.

Thanks, Chris

lwc95661@comcase.net

I had thought I had a good argument per a lack of notice from the state court I had to sell my guns, not true, per settled federal law

The Male does not need to know the state court order was issued,
Per 18 USC 922 G8 notice per that federal law does not require actual notice to sell his guns,

A Judge could without notice and the male would and will be charged with a federal crime even when such notice is required by state law

This feel like Judge law rather than the Work of Congress

Call you member of Congress and confirmed case law cited by federal judge US V Napier 233 F.3d. 394, 399 ) 6th cir, 2000. and US v Coccia , 249, F supp, 2d 79, 81, D Mass, 2003

Federal courts ruled Congress does not require proof of harm per 18 USC 922 g8 the only duty the state judge has is to make sure the respondent is a male

591 F.2d 978, affirmed.

In addition both house of Congress and the President , Clinton, support father going to federal jail when their only crime is their gender

I thought I was in combat to protect the bill of rights, rights that fall below basic human rights, batter to learn the truth about this county at age 62 years than to continue to believe in a lie.

Final Point, the above feel all felon are evil and only good people should have aright to protect themselves and their family members

It is hard to leave my birth Nation , yet harder to live under oppression

Alaska: The court spends a great deal of its time differentiating the rights at stake. The Court read Heller to protect the right to own a firearm for self defense. in this case, the defendant owned a firearm for hunting. Since this is a legitimate purpose, but not the core of the right recognized in Heller, only intermediate scrutiny was used.Here is an interesting twist, though. In my state, with roughly 20% of the population being Alaska Natives, we have a number of Alaska Natives who have been convicted of crimes involving domestic violence. They absolutely use firearms to hunt. In fact, much of Alaska’s land is governed by federal fish and wildlife regulations and management because the federal government recognizes that Alaska Natives, as part of Indian tribes, have a fundamental right to hunt and fish on their native lands. (This right is recognized in numerous federal regulations and treaties between the U.S. government and various Indian tribes.) When the State refuses to recognize that right (It’s a very long story), the feds then step in to manage federal land to protect such a right. This right is based upon the history and tradition of the Indian tribes in general, and, in my state, Alaska Natives in particular.Given that background, would the possession of firearms by an Alaska Native or a member of an Indian tribe for the purpose of subsistence hunting then be a fundamental right that would require strict scrutiny? I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a fascinating question. If I wind up representing a client charged with this offense in federal court here, I may raise that issue.

geat question wish i had the answer

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-3770_002.pdf

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=08-3770_002.pdf

I could use a copy on the ruling from the 7 circuit or citation

Sac federal court case no CR S 03 – 483 wbs US v Larry W.Campbell

In the Seventh Circuit’s case, they certainly did imply that strict scrutiny would apply if the weapon was owned for self-defense purposes, but the post-Heller Second Amendment does not have self-defense limitation. It starts with the militia stuff we all know and goes on to say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes.

The approach which Scalia seems to be advocating seems to be similar to the view he rejected in a Sixth Amendment case called Ohio v Roberts. In Ohio v Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that to satisfy the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment the state had to either give the accused: (a) face to face confrontation; (b) admit the evidence under a historically recognized and reliable hearsay exception; or, (c) prove individualized reliability. In Crawford v Washington, Justice Scalia (writing for the majority) overruled Roberts and said that the Constitution guaranteed the right to face-to-face confrontation and if the evidence is “testimonial” (a term subject to a ton of litigation), the evidence was inadmissible.

In Heller, the Court adopted a viewpoint of the Second Amendment that had been previously rejected by the Court. In order to temper it, Justice Scalia attempted to take on some of the “chicken little” arguments in dicta, but that was not holding. The Court is going to have to take it on.

There is a great Harvard Law article entitled “Should Martha Stewart Be Allowed to Own a Gun?” which questions many of the historical arguments made and argues that the ban on felon gun ownership is really a 20th century invention and questions the analogies that are drawn to older and different civil disabilities. The article also argues that in this regulatory world where things like insider trading are felonies, the Government has a much tougher road to haul justifying the restriction. I agree with these sentiments.

If the ban on felon ownership is tossed, it will probably be replaced with something where a person can earn back the right to own a weapon. Congress could do this by simply refunding the ATF program and allow ATF to charge $500 or $1000 to investigate such an application. I have to imagine that they would break even at such a point and people would probably do a bit of self-reflection before applying (e.g. ask themselves do “I have a chance” of convincing someone of my rehabilitation).

After Willie Horton issue in the first George Bush’s run for governor, pardons have become much harder to get in many states. Back in 1968, former offenders who were clean for a number of years routinely had requests for rehabilitative pardons granted. That is no longer the case and if you look at states like Florida, you’ll see that for years they were even asking whether the restored individual was likely to vote for the other party.

Stu

PS: I am an appellate attorney of twenty years, but that does not give me any special wisdom in determining what the U.S. Supreme Court is going to do. McDonald v Chicago is going to be the hottest case of this term. I’m going to guess that they will incorporate the Second Amendment to the States, but there is a huge debate whether the U.S. Supreme Court will have to overrule an old case called the “Slaughterhouse Cases” to do it. The NRA’s brief in McDonald is making that argument.

I would use this argument about disarming those convicted of misdemeanors: If the presumption is that all felons SHOULD be denied their fundamental constitutionally secured right to arms, because, of course, ALL felons are a danger to themselves and others, why did Congress exclude those convicted of financial crimes from firearm disability under the Gun Control Act of 1968? Would possession of a undersized lobster, which might be a felony, be more weighty than a conviction for insider trading on Wall Street? Why then is there a disability for misdemeanors at all?

Will someone who IS a lawyer, please pick up this ball and run with it?

Soronel Haetir: Trying to make a self-defense in the home argument isn’t likely to go very far when the firearm is found in a vehicle.

It most certainly could if you own the gun for multiple purposes.

Since this is a shotgun, it could be used for deer, duck, goose, turkey, and various small game hunting, certainly it would be appropriate for sports like skeet and sporting clays, and it would also be entirely appropriate as a self-defense firearm at home.

Just because it happened to be in use in one possible mode of use doesn’t invalidate the others. That would be like arguing that someone couldn’t claim they use their car for driving to work, just because they also happen to take it down to the track on Sunday to drag race it.

FN 1 The probation search also turned up two firearms in Skoien’s home, a Winchester .308-caliber rifle and a Paramount .25caliber handgun. Skoien was indicted for possessing all three guns, but the prosecutor conceded at Skoien’s change-of-plea hearing that he could not prove the handgun and the rifle found in the home were Skoien’s. Some evidence apparently suggested that the handgun belonged to Skoien’s wife, Gidget, and the rifle belonged to Darin Rudolph, their roommate. Accordingly, Skoien’s conditional guilty plea was based only on his possession of the Winchester hunting shotgun found in the truck. At sentencing, however, Skoien did not contest “constructive possession” of the two additional guns for purposes of increasing his base offense level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).

The shotgun was not his either. The offense is possession, not ownership. At any rate, he had an incentive to disclaim the guns in the house, given the prosecutor’s penchant for locking him up and throwing away the key.
The 7th Circuit is inviting the fabrication of a sliding scale for an “as applied” test, or at least leaving the possession in the home for another case. But that doesn’t mean it will eventually rule and enact a sliding scale. The 7th Circuit needs new caselaw on its books, to overturn its “922 (g)(9) is constitutional under a collective-rights view of the Second Amendment.” A new coat of paint over the rule, if you will.
I’ll be surprised if the Circuit Court actually crafts a sliding scale that results in a different outcome for “in the home” vs. “out hunting.” I don’t see any real risk (from the federal Courts) to the federal law banning possession to domestic violence misdemeanants.
I believe the Courts are corrupt on 2nd amendment jurisprudence (see misconstruction of Presser, Miller, etc.), and will cherry-pick history, if need be, to uphold the statute.

tomhynes: In California, temporary civil harassment restraining orders almost always (or always) include a gun prohibition. No notice, no hearing, frequently no violence or threat of violence. Allegations of multiple rude text messages will pull your 2nd Amendment rights.

That is in a “Nordyke may not be cited in this circuit” California. This problem will not last much longer in a post McDonald world.

-Gene

I don’t personally see this as a valid application of Heller. I don’t think Heller created two rights to keep and bear arms, one for self-defense with strict scrutiny and another for other matters with lesser scrutiny. I believe Heller resulted in a single unitary right to keep and bear arms with a single uniform standard applicable to every purpose and circumstance where the right exists.

However, the Court didn’t get everything wrong – they cited EV’s Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-
Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda. :-)

Alaska: The court spends a great deal of its time differentiating the rights at stake. The Court read Heller to protect the right to own a firearm for self defense. in this case, the defendant owned a firearm for hunting. Since this is a legitimate purpose, but not the core of the right recognized in Heller, only intermediate scrutiny was used.Here is an interesting twist, though. In my state, with roughly 20% of the population being Alaska Natives, we have a number of Alaska Natives who have been convicted of crimes involving domestic violence. They absolutely use firearms to hunt. In fact, much of Alaska’s land is governed by federal fish and wildlife regulations and management because the federal government recognizes that Alaska Natives, as part of Indian tribes, have a fundamental right to hunt and fish on their native lands. (This right is recognized in numerous federal regulations and treaties between the U.S. government and various Indian tribes.) When the State refuses to recognize that right (It’s a very long story), the feds then step in to manage federal land to protect such a right. This right is based upon the history and tradition of the Indian tribes in general, and, in my state, Alaska Natives in particular.Given that background, would the possession of firearms by an Alaska Native or a member of an Indian tribe for the purpose of subsistence hunting then be a fundamental right that would require strict scrutiny? I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a fascinating question. If I wind up representing a client charged with this offense in federal court here, I may raise that issue.

Just as a question, how if at all has this been changed by the disbandment of nearly all the tribes? CJ Roberts argued and won the case that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act destroyed any claim to the land being Indian Territory.

(I am aware of one remaining reservation, having lived there in the 1980s.)

Which basically is what Heller did.

The idea that a person owns a gun for just one purpose is silly.

It’s not a silly idea if that’s exactly what the defendant is asserting. The 7th Circuit has no problem with the concept of owning a gun for multiple purposes, but, if the defendant does not claim to need the gun for self-defense, it’s hard for the 7th Circuit to argue that self-defense interests are implicated.

If I had to guess, the defendant here thought he was doing himself a favor by claiming that he only had the gun in his possession to hunt. To him, it probably seemed less wrong to claim that the gun was only for hunting.

And what if a person owns a .357 handgun for self-defense and a 12-gauge for duck hunting? If I’m reading the 7th Circuit correctly, on the right set of facts, he could be prosecuted for owning the shotgun but not the handgun. This is absurd. If in fact the person truly should not have a gun, then it makes no sense to say he can have one but not the other. Alternatively, if there’s no real reason to keep him from having a gun, he should be able to have both guns.

Tim: If that’s true, it’s an awful shame that some of those comments are in there. They are a detriment to our cause, did nothing to help Dick Heller and his fellow litigants, and stand to legitimize trial determinations like the one in this case.I am from the perspective that all that dicta may severely narrow Second Amendment protections if the Court doesn’t choose to hear more of these cases and clarify its position. And, obviously, as a support of the 2A, that scares me quite a bit.By that logic, bad dicta becomes bad holdings, and if appealed and affirmed, bad precedent.

I don’t know enough about second amendment law to say what’s the accurate interpretation…but Heller has in many cases translated to “right to bear arms necessary for self-defense in a home.” Step outside the home, and you apparently need a new case to handle it. Change the rationale (i.e. not self-defense), and you need a whole new body of law. Or at least that’s how it seems from some of the lower court cases.

I guess in order to justify the second chance, the 7th Circuit said “in fairness, because Heller did not establish a standard of review the government did not know what its burden would be.” But, the government and the district court proceeded under the assumption that it had to meet the strict scrutiny standard. Is the 7th Circuit really arguing that if the government had known the standard it needed to meet was intermediate, rather than strict, it would have presented more evidence? That makes no sense.

If an individual fails to meet their burden or makes the slightest procedural error, the appellate court will rule against them in a heart beat. On the other hand, if the government screws up, the court will hold its hand and give it as many chances as necessary to fix the problem.