Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

KirStang · 03-23-2009, 05:10 PM

Briefly going over the opinion, I gleaned the following facts:

1.) Appellant/defendant was convicted of battery

2.) The Battery was committed against his then wife.

3.) However, the conviction for battery doesn't necessitate domestic violence. It is broad enough to include any act of battery.

4.) Defendant, argues on a technicality that, because the state statute that convicted him didn't require domestic violence, his conviction is without the element of 'domestic violence' necessary to invoke the 922 section which divests him of the right to own firearms.

Personally, if the underlying offense was committed against a domestic spouse, I don't think a technicality should get him off from falling within the 922 section.

The argument of whether or not domestic violence should divest a person of his 2A rights is a whole 'nother argument. (As an aside, what irks me the most is when an Ex Parte claim of Domestic Violence is made, certain jurisdictions allow the coppers to come and confiscate all your weapons...[Ex Parte Claim = 1 sided and *possibly* without merit...i smell due process violation..])

*Edit*
-Btw, can anyone else think of a shittier test case? I bet this case would have never made it to the SCOTUS had Hayes lost in the 4th Circuit. It seems like, certain political entities, smelling opportunity, encouraged appeal to firmly establish a favorable precedent to their cause.

03-23-2009, 05:10 PM	#32 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Briefly going over the opinion, I gleaned the following facts: 1.) Appellant/defendant was convicted of battery 2.) The Battery was committed against his then wife. 3.) However, the conviction for battery doesn't necessitate domestic violence. It is broad enough to include any act of battery. 4.) Defendant, argues on a technicality that, because the state statute that convicted him didn't require domestic violence, his conviction is without the element of 'domestic violence' necessary to invoke the 922 section which divests him of the right to own firearms. Personally, if the underlying offense was committed against a domestic spouse, I don't think a technicality should get him off from falling within the 922 section. The argument of whether or not domestic violence should divest a person of his 2A rights is a whole 'nother argument. (As an aside, what irks me the most is when an Ex Parte claim of Domestic Violence is made, certain jurisdictions allow the coppers to come and confiscate all your weapons...[Ex Parte Claim = 1 sided and possibly without merit...i smell due process violation..]) Edit -Btw, can anyone else think of a shittier test case? I bet this case would have never made it to the SCOTUS had Hayes lost in the 4th Circuit. It seems like, certain political entities, smelling opportunity, encouraged appeal to firmly establish a favorable precedent to their cause. Last edited by KirStang; 03-23-2009 at 05:14 PM..