Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Fourth Circuit orders Second Amendment hearing to assess constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)
US v. Chester
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether William Samuel Chester’s conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) abridges his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). We vacate the decision below and remand for further proceedings....

We cannot conclude on this record that the government has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the important object of reducing domestic gun violence and § 922(g)(9)’s permanent disarmament of all domestic violence misdemeanants. The government has offered numerous plausible reasons why the disarmament of domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to an important government goal; however, it has not attempted to offer sufficient evidence to establish a substantial relationship between § 922(g)(9) and an important governmental goal. Having established the appropriate standard of review, we think it best to remand this case to afford the government an opportunity to shoulder its burden and Chester an opportunity to respond. Both sides should have an opportunity to present their evidence and their arguments to the district court in the first instance.
Some analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy..
http://volokh.com/2010/12/30/big-se...possession-by-domestic-violence-misdemeanants
 

·
My Name is Inigo Montoya
Joined
·
4,025 Posts
Ashe said:
Fourth Circuit orders Second Amendment hearing to assess constitutionality of § 922(g)(9)
US v. Chester
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether William Samuel Chester’s conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) abridges his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). We vacate the decision below and remand for further proceedings....

We cannot conclude on this record that the government has carried its burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the important object of reducing domestic gun violence and § 922(g)(9)’s permanent disarmament of all domestic violence misdemeanants. The government has offered numerous plausible reasons why the disarmament of domestic violence misdemeanants is substantially related to an important government goal; however, it has not attempted to offer sufficient evidence to establish a substantial relationship between § 922(g)(9) and an important governmental goal. Having established the appropriate standard of review, we think it best to remand this case to afford the government an opportunity to shoulder its burden and Chester an opportunity to respond. Both sides should have an opportunity to present their evidence and their arguments to the district court in the first instance.
Some analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy..
http://volokh.com/2010/12/30/big-se...possession-by-domestic-violence-misdemeanants
Isnt that a Lautenberg special? id so love to see Jersey screwed over on this one...:-D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,864 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I can't stand the Lautenberg Act. It's not only bad reasoning, and bad law.
And IMHO its unconstitutional as a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,974 Posts
Ashe said:
I can't stand the Lautenberg Act. It's not only bad reasoning, and bad law.
And IMHO its unconstitutional as a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment.
I don't like the precedent it has set. If this type of misdemeanor can be a lifetime prohibitor what other misdemeanors can be added later to the list of lifetime prohibitors?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,524 Posts
Clayton Cramer posted a comment.
The defendant in this case is not even SLIGHTLY sympathetic. If you think there are no sympathetic defendants in domestic violence cases: think again. My daughter runs a court-ordered domestic violence treatment program and tells me that while there are a lot of guys (and some gals) who are the sort of brutal, abusive people that you imagine, there are also cases where someone (often the woman) pushed her husband out of the way to be able to leave the houseâ€"and ended up with a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction.

I do wonder if we might be better off distinguishing more sensibly between domestic disputes that involve someone throwing a cup across the room, and someone kicking a family member until they are covered in bruises. One of these may need to be a felony, and the other a misdemeanor.

I was pleased to see some of my work cited in the decision.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top