Somethings just plain different about this… Judges actually got it correct!
A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that the anti gun “Lautenberg Law” is overly inclusive. It’s a win for a Wisconsin hunter. The man was fortunate enough to have Appeal Judges in his case that applied “Originalist” interpretations of the Second Amendment in deciding his appeal.
Steven Skoien was convicted of domestic battery in a Wisconsin state court and was sentenced to two years in prison.
As a result of his conviction, he was subject to anti gun sanctions of the “Lautenberg Law.” Federal Law stated that he couldn’t own or possess firearms or ammunition because of his domestic violence conviction.
He appealed, arguing that applying the additional “Lautenberg Law” penalty to him violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms as explained in Heller.
Which is http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/
Tags: Domestic Violence, Gun Control, Lautenberg Law, News, Politics
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
November 26, 2009 at 11:17
Patrick, mind crediting my blog as the source for for the quoted material above? Thanks
Cheers
jgh
LikeLike
November 26, 2009 at 14:12
Not a problem, the “source” takes you too
http://secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com/2009/11/man-convicted-of-domestic-violence-wins.html
While this story was all over the net I happen to like his presentation much better than most of the others, and figured many would enjoy reading his blog.
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 01:25
Great post to both of you, thanks!
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 08:59
Thanks GTP!
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 09:20
Does this decision affect the rest of the country? Is it settled law then?
Can I openly hunt now, without having to borrow my friend’s shotgun and looking around for wardens every 30 seconds?
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 09:29
[…] freedom and liberty here in America as well as abroad. While there has been some good news on the immoral Lautenberg ex post facto domestic violence law, for the most part we are under assault on many […]
LikeLike
November 29, 2009 at 13:11
I haven’t heard yet if this ruling has national implications or not yet Robert. I will do my best to find out though.
LikeLike
November 30, 2009 at 08:58
Patrick, this ruling only applies in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, and nowhere else. It is only “persuasive” if used in other Federal Court’s jurisdictions in legal briefs lawyers use in trying to help Courts decide similar cases in their client’s favor in those other Courts.
If anyone believes they are affected by this ruling, be careful in trying to apply this ruling to any other individual situation without further specific legal advice. You may find yourself in trouble if you act without legal advice.
Also, this ruling is valid only with essentially the same fact pattern that the Court analyzed in the Sokien case.
Unless the U.S. Attorneys in the Districts affected by the 7th Circuit Court decision make it a policy not to pursue anyone else under Lautenberg because they believe future cases would be losers because of Sokien,
there is nothing to stop an aggressive U.S. Attorney from prosecuting someone else under the same law, and then trying to convince the Court that the Sokien case does not apply because the facts in the case they may be trying to prosecute at the moment are “different” from the facts in the Sokien case.
This is what they make lawyers for.
For example, even though there are specific 4th Amendment Search & Seizure rights, cases arising from these issues are pursued every day. Its all in the interpretation of the law as applied to the facts presented.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals only governs U.S. District Courts in the:
Central District of Illinois
Northern District of Illinois
Southern District of Illinois
Northern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Western District of Wisconsin
LikeLike
December 1, 2009 at 07:05
Thanks JG, I spent a good part of two days and all I came up with were conflicting stories.
If,and I admit that it is in fact a big if; other courts,say two or more , then perhaps there might be some action on a federal level.
Still, I have problems with this ruling. Once again a court has failed to address the fundamental flaws with it. Those being the taking of rights based upon less than felony behaviors, and the ex post facto applications.
Robert, I hope that JG answered your question.
LikeLike