Criminal Record May Not Prevent Gun Ownership
A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a Wisconsin man barred from owning firearms because of his criminal record, ruling the lifetime prohibition may violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights and calling into question the future of a 13-year old gun control law.
In a 3-0 decision on Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge to take a second look at the evidence that a 1996 federal law prohibiting anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is constitutional in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that emphasized “the individual right to possess and carry weapons.”
This case involves a man named Steven Skoien, who previously had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery. A year later, a Winchester 12-gauge hunting shotgun was discovered in a truck parked outside his home, along with evidence (including an orange hunting jacket, a deer carcass, and a state-issued tag for a deer kill) that he had used it earlier in the day. He was charged with illegal possession of a firearm.
this is one of the first appeals court cases to take an in-depth look at the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in D.C. v. Heller on existing federal firearms laws. It’s true that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion said: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill…”
But misdemeanors are different from felonies, which the Seventh Circuit noted: “We therefore assume that Skoien’s Second Amendment rights are intact notwithstanding his misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction.” The judges said that the ownership ban is life-long and sweeping, providing no way for a now-peaceable citizen to seek an exception: “The government has the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between its important interest in reducing domestic gun violence and the means chosen to advance that interest — Section 922(g)(9)’s total disarmament of domestic-violence misdemeanants.” (What they didn’t point out, but could have, is that a law enacted in 1996 is not exactly “longstanding.”)
Tony Gibart is worried that this case might leave a wrong impression that firearm restrictions imposed on those convicted of domestic violence are somehow different in kind from similar restrictions on felons and those deemed mentally incompetent. The truth is they should be different. The key word here is misdemeanor. They can be trusted to hold public office, to vote and sit on a jury, but they cant own a gun, makes a whole lot of sense. Tony Gibart claims to have all this evidence, that seven victims have been killed with firearms with previous DV convictons. Guess what they still got there hands on guns. Out of all statistics shown I wonder if they ever show any about those being previosly convicted staying out of trouble lets say ten or twenty years, I doubt it because they claim that is goes unreported, and they feel that it give them justification to judge everybody the same. The truth is not everybod with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction comes home on a daily basis and manipulates every aspect of there spouses lives. I wonder if the statistics of those with felony and misdemeanor convictions are separate, if not they should be because they are different classes of offenders. The statistics that are shown are only partial truths. If Skoines crime was severe enough to lose his second amendment rights he should of been charged with a felony he was not, this is a failure of the judges if they are failing to do so. Good people are losing there right to bear arms as something as a silly argument. I know a few women that claim that they are tired of people like tony gibart meddling with there lives over someting as silly as a argument with there spouse. If any type of intervention was required it should have been classified as a felony. Right now it is easier for violent felons to get there second amendment rights restored than those convicted with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. I guess it is okay to take a risk of someone being a menace to an entire society over family issues. To strip one of there rights over what they think he or she might do is purely unconstitutional. To treat felons better that misdemeanants is unconstitutional. The lautenberg goes far beyond domestic violence take this terror watch list for example, they are talking about putting returning veterans from iraq and afgahanistan on it that could strip them of there second amendment rights. This is a slap in the face to our men and woman serving in uniform. Might I remind Tony Gibart that if it werent for our veterans that they would not be able to exercise any right. It is time that the government and people like tony gibart to stop micro managing americans life. They are trying to strip away the second amendment slowly with amendment after amendment. To sentence one for exercising his constitutional right is tyrany. How can one lose a constitutional right when the offense was not severe enough to lose core civil rights. The ex po facto thing has been argued time and time again, how can memebers of congress dare say that losing your god giving constitutional right is not considered punishment. America please wake up.
I believe that alot of courts dont even care about reducing domestic gun violence, they just see this as a opportunity to grab guns. If they were really concerned why woul the supreme court rule that we have no constitutional right to be protected by the police. 7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales’ husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales’ family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one’s individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
“…a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen…” -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her.”
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html (http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html)
people who have no right to protect themselves will probubly die.how many dead witnesses serive in court after the facts of no protection of ones own person?thats right,no dead witnesses,isnt that just the funniest thing,lets all have a good laugh at the people who died not being able to protect themselves.big laugh now,come on,i’ll start…..ha!,ha!,ha!people in this nation have the right to defend thenselves just like law enforcement people do 24 seven!!polititions and judges dont corner the market for personal police protection,or do they,hmmmm.