Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The Lautenberg amendment has been part of federal gun control legislation for 12 years.
|
this means what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
It addressed the fact that in some states, domestic violence is a felony and in others it is a misdemeanor...and it further addressed the cases where a person is convicted of a misdemeanor under a general battery law. The relationship that the offender has with victim is what determines whether or not the misdemeanor is a domestic violence misdemeanor.
|
which partially makes the decision a horrendous one. Instead of looking at the plain statute of the state and determining that there is no reference to a domestic element, the majority decision says plainly that it doesn't matter. Now, according to the USSC, misdemeanor assault statutes don't need the domestic element to apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
As I understand it, this guy beat his wife or used physical force (or threatened the use of a gun), was convicted of misdemeanor battery and claimed that since he was not charged specifically with domestic battery or domestic violence, the Lautenberg amendment did not apply to him and he should have the right to possess a firearm.
|
the state statute he was convicted of had nothing to do with a domestic violence yet the USSC that the exact wording of the state statute is irrelevant, that it's not the detail of the crime, but the nature of the relationship involved. Basically, the USSC ignored the state statute and supplied its own interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Nope, sorry guy.
|
It would still make you incorrect.