### Ammunition Alone is illegal for Prior Offenders ###
� Reality Check� �
RESTRAINING ORDERS
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 contains a provision which
prohibits the subject of a domestic violence restraining order from
possessing firearms and ammunition. Under 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(8), anyone
subject to a qualifying restraining order cannot possess a firearm or
ammunition. Intimate partners include spouses, former spouses or significant
others
MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 amended the
Federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(9). Under these provisions, it
is unlawful for an individual convicted of a state or federal "misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence" to "ship, transport, possess or receive firearms
or ammunition.
Law enforcement officers and governmental employees (such as security guards
or military personnel) art not exempt from this law with respect to their
receipt or possession of firearms or ammunition. Therefore, law enforcement
and other government employees who have been convicted of a qualifying
misdemeanor will not be able to lawfully possess or receive firearms or
ammunition or any purposes, including performing their official duties.
Furthermore, the law makes it unlawful for any person, including
governmental agencies, to sell or otherwise issue firearms or ammunition to
any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person has
been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence.
As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the
prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic
violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the
effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
� Reality Check� �
18 U.S.C. � 922
g.. It shall be unlawful for any person --
8.. who is subject to a court order that -
1.. was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual
notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
2.. restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an
intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person,
or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
3..
1.. includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat
to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
2.. by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that
would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
9.. who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce,
or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to
receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.
� Reality Check� �
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 07-2037
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
PAUL HICKS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge, Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. After a jury trial, appellant Paul Hicks was convicted
of being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. �
922(g)(1) and of possession with intent to distribute crack and powder
cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. � 841(a)(1). He now appeals his conviction
and sentence, requiring us to consider, among other things: whether a
warrant for the search of his residence was supported by probable cause,
whether the district court wrongfully denied appellant a Franks hearing to
establish the veracity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant, and
whether it was error to admit evidence of appellant's three prior drug
convictions and other bad acts. We reject appellant's claims of error and
affirm.
� Reality Check� �
Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
Questions and Answers
1. What is a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
As defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, a "misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence" means an offense that:
(1) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law;
(2) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the
threatened use of a deadly weapon; and
(3) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the
victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a
person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse,
parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent,
or guardian of the victim.
However, a person is not considered to have been convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence unless:
(1) the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and
intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(2) in the case of a prosecution for which a person was entitled to a jury
trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either--
(a) the case was tried by a jury, or
(b) the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case
tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
2. What is the effective date of this disability?
The law was effective September 30, 1996. However, the prohibition applies
to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the
conviction occurred prior to the new law's effective date.
3. Does the new disability apply to law enforcement officers?
Yes. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was amended so that employees of Government
agencies convicted of qualifying misdemeanors would not be exempt from this
new disability with respect to their receipt or possession of firearms or
ammunition. Thus, law enforcement officers and other Government officials
who have been convicted of a disqualifying misdemeanor may not lawfully
possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including
performance of their official duties. This disability applies to firearms
and ammunition issued by Government agencies, firearms and ammunition
purchased by Government employees for use in performing their official
duties, and personal firearms and ammunition possessed by such employees.
4. Is this provision of the law being applied retroactively in violation of
constitutional rights?
No. This provision is not being applied retroactively or in violation of the
ex post facto clause of the Constitution. This is because the law does not
impose additional punishment upon persons convicted prior to the effective
date, but merely regulates the future possession of firearms on or after the
effective date. The provision is not retroactive merely because the person's
conviction occurred prior to the effective date.
5. What is the penalty for violating this offense?
Any individual who knowingly violates this provision of the law is subject
to a fine of $250,000, imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.
6. Does the law impose any additional duties on dealers in firearms and
ammunition?
Yes. Until the Form 4473 and Brady forms have been revised to include the
new offense, licensees should inquire of their customers whether they have
been convicted of a disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanor and avoid
transferring any firearms or ammunition to such persons. ATF is in the
process of revising the forms and will provide them to licensees as soon as
possible.
7. What should a licensee do if he has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence?
Federal firearms licensees should verify that they are disabled under the
new prohibition. A licensee convicted of a disqualifying misdemeanor may not
lawfully possess firearms or ammunition. In addition, a licensee who incurs
firearms disabilities during the term of a license may not continue
operations under the license for more than 30 days after incurring the
disability unless the licensee applies for relief from Federal firearms
disabilities.
8. What should a person do if he has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence?
Individuals subject to this disability should immediately lawfully dispose
of their firearms and ammunition. ATF recommends that such persons transfer
their firearms and ammunition to a third party, such as their attorney, to
their local police agency, or a Federal firearms dealer. The continued
possession of firearms or ammunition by persons under this disability is a
violation of law and may subject the possessor to criminal penalties. In
addition, such firearms and ammunition are subject to seizure and
forfeiture.
9. X was convicted of misdemeanor assault on October 10, 1996. The crime of
assault does not make specific mention of domestic violence, but the
criminal complaint reflects that X assaulted his wife. May X still possess
firearms or ammunition?
No. X may no longer possess firearms or ammunition.
10. X was convicted of the same crime on September 20, 1996, 10 days before
the effective date of the new statute. He possesses a firearm on October 10,
1996. May X lawfully possess firearms?
No. If a person was convicted of a crime at any time, he or she may not
lawfully possess firearms or ammunition on or after September 30, 1996.
11. What State and local offenses are "misdemeanors" for purposes of 18
U.S.C. . 922(d)(9) and (g)(9)?
"Misdemeanor" as used in 18 U.S.C. . 922(d)(9) and (g)(9) includes any
offense under State law or local ordinance punishable by imprisonment, other
than a "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" as
defined in 18 U.S.C. . 921(a)(20). Whether the State uses the word
"misdemeanor" to describe the offense is immaterial.
12. In determining whether a conviction in a State court is a "conviction"
of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, does Federal or State law
apply?
State law applies. If a conviction for a qualifying misdemeanor does not
occur under State law, the person has not been "convicted" of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence. The law states that a person must be convicted
of a State misdemeanor to be under firearms disabilities. Therefore, if the
State does not consider the person to be convicted, the person would not
have Federal firearms disabilities.
13. Is a person who received "probation before judgment" or some other type
of deferred adjudication subject to this disability?
What is a conviction is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which
the proceedings were held. If the State law where the proceedings were held
does not consider probation before judgement or deferred adjudication to be
a conviction, the person would not be subject to Federal firearms
disabilities.
14. Are local criminal ordinances "misdemeanors under State law" for
purposes of sections 922(d)(9) and (g)(9)?
Yes, assuming a violation of the ordinance meets the definition of
"misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" in all other respects.
15. X was convicted of misdemeanor assault on October 10, 1996. The crime of
assault does not make specific mention of domestic violence but the criminal
complaint reflects that he assaulted his wife. May X still possess firearms
or ammunition
No. X may no longer possess firearms or ammunition.
16. X was convicted of the same crime on September 20, 1996, 10 days before
the effective date of the new statute. He possesses a firearm on October 10,
1996. May X lawfully possess firearms?
No. If a person was convicted of the crime at any time, he or she may not
lawfully possess firearms or ammunition on or after September 30, 1996.
17. Officer C was charged with felony assault on her child in 1989. She pled
guilty to a misdemeanor and the felony charge was dismissed. She was
suspended from the police force and ordered to undergo counseling. After
successful completion of the counseling, she was reinstated. May Officer C
lawfully possess firearms or ammunition?
No. Officer C may no longer lawfully possess firearms or ammunition either
on or off duty.
� Reality Check� �
For Immediate Release
January 14, 2009 United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600
Guilty Verdict Against Man Caught with Pornographic Images of 4-Year-Old
Stepdaughter
LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District
of New York, announced that yesterday, after a six-day jury trial before
United States District Judge RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, WILLIAM DAVIS was found
guilty of possessing, producing, and attempting to mail child pornography,
as well as of possessing ammunition following a prior felony conviction.
According to the Indictment and the evidence at trial: The case began on
January 4, 2007, when DAVIS was arrested at a motel in Ardsley, New York, in
connection with a separate investigation by the Ardsley Police Department
and the Westchester County Police Department. Pornographic images of the
defendant's then four-year old stepdaughter were found at that time inside
DAVIS's backpack, in sealed envelopes ready to be mailed. A subsequent
search of DAVIS's personal safe revealed a collection of hundreds of images
of child pornography, some involving infants. Ammunition and a taser gun
were also found.
DAVIS was charged with one count each of possession of child pornography,
production of child pornography, and attempting to mail child pornography.
In addition, because DAVIS had a prior felony conviction, he was charged
with illegal possession of ammunition. DAVIS was found guilty on all counts.
DAVIS, 48, of New York, New York, faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 35
years' imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment on the charge of
producing child pornography; a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum
of 40 years for attempted mailing of child pornography; a mandatory minimum
of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years for possession of child pornography;
and a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for possession of
ammunition as a prior-convicted felon.
� Reality Check� �
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH ROY MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.No. 02-1136
D.C. No. 01-CR-277-N
(D. Colorado)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT(*)
Before EBEL, LUCERO and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Roy Morrison appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession of
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. � 922(g)(1). He argues that the
district court should have suppressed evidence introduced against him
because it was the product of various Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.
Because we find that no constitutional violations were committed during
Morrison's investigation and arrest, we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. � 1291 and AFFIRM his conviction.
FACTS(1)
On the evening of June 21, 2001, Chaffee County Sheriff's Deputy Mike
Browett observed two cars parked on the northbound shoulder of Highway 285,
south of Nathrop, Colorado. As he drove by, he noticed two men standing
outside these cars, one of whom appeared to be waving the deputy down.
Deputy Browett made a u-turn, pulled in behind the cars and addressed the
man who had flagged him down--William Boyd.
Boyd informed Deputy Browett that the other driver (the defendant Joseph
Morrison) was speeding and driving recklessly. Boyd told Browett that after
Morrison had passed Boyd in his car, they both pulled off the highway. They
began to have an argument and Morrison hit Boyd in the chest and chin.
Morrison then brandished a pipe device and asked Boyd if he wanted Morrison
to "blow his head off."
As Boyd related these details to Deputy Browett, Morrison drove away.
Intending to further investigate the alleged traffic violations and menacing
behavior, Deputy Browett decided to follow Morrison and instructed Boyd to
follow in his own car.
Browett pulled Morrison over and ran a routine check of his license,
registration, and insurance, which revealed nothing unusual. Browett
informed Morrison that he wanted to talk further with both him and Boyd to
determine what happened during the altercation.
Boyd then reported that Morrison, who was speeding, had tailgated and then
passed him over a double yellow line. Boyd then attempted to pass Morrison,
who swerved, running Boyd off the highway. They then exchanged obscene
gestures and Boyd pulled over, followed by Morrison. As Morrison approached
him, Boyd took out a metal fly rod case to protect himself. An argument
ensued; Morrison hit Boyd in the chin and chest, pushed Boyd, pulled out the
pipe device and threatened to "blow his head off."
Browett and a back-up officer, Deputy Vidmar, then approached Morrison's car
to question him. Morrison claimed he had no weapons except a pocket knife,
which he gave to the officers, and denied pointing anything at Boyd's head.
Browett then conducted a protective pat-down and discovered a .308 caliber
bullet in Morrison's pocket, which Morrison explained was his good luck
charm. During this interview, Browett detected the smell of alcohol on
Morrison's breath.
Browett asked Morrison if he had anything illegal in his car. Morrison
denied having anything illegal and permitted Browett to search the car.
Browett recovered the pipe device, which he thought might be drug
paraphernalia, as well as a butterfly knife. Morrison told Browett the
device was something he had put together because he was bored.
Browett showed the device to Boyd, who confirmed that it was the object
Morrison used to threaten him. Upon closer examination, Browett realized
that the pipe was a loaded makeshift firearm known as a "zip gun" and
arrested Morrison for possession of an illegal weapon and felony menacing.
Fearing that it would discharge, Browett placed the zip gun on the ground
and summoned a more experienced police officer to help him disarm it. (ROA 2
at 26.) In response to that officer's question, Morrison said that the gun
could be unscrewed and dismantled.
Browett then took Morrison to the Sheriff's office. On the way there,
Morrison made several lewd suggestions and offensive remarks to Browett. A
test revealed Morrison's blood alcohol level to be .047.
Prior to trial, Morrison moved to suppress the .308 caliber bullet and other
evidence obtained from his car as well as several of the statements he made
during the investigation. The district court denied his motion, and a jury
convicted Morrison of being a felon in possession of ammunition.
� Reality Check� �
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:t25695lkpamstmues...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:48:07 -0600, "� Reality Check� �"
> <rea...@check.it> wrote:
>
> Uhh duh, I already knew ammunition possession is illegal for felons,
> still isn't a firearm violation though.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks, aren't you woofie?
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>
> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the
> prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic
> violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the
> effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor
> crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
unfair.
� Reality Check� �
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
The Gun Loons and their NRA mouthpiece have no one to blame
but themselves for habitually endorsing policies that deny the RTKBA
to "other" people ... and then whine and complain when the definition
of "other" people is continually expanded until it includes THEM.
Their hypocrisy has come back to bite them in the ass.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:7fhib2F...@mid.individual.net:
Yes indeed. Millions of americans have lost RKBA for victimless non-
violent drug "crimes" that were classified as felonies and the NRA is cool
with that. NRA has been totally infiltrated by the govt.
Bill Smith
<rea...@check.it> wrote:
>
>"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>message
>news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote:
>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>
>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However, the
>>> prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic
>>> violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996. Therefore, as of the
>>> effective date, any person who has EVER been convicted of a misdemeanor
>>> crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>
>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>> unfair.
Not to mention unconstitutional.
Bill Smith
RD (The Sandman)
news:hk98955hukogc9t40...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "� Reality Check� �"
> <rea...@check.it> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>in message
>>news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com..
>>.
>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote:
>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>
>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer
>>>> possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>>
>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>> unfair.
>
> Not to mention unconstitutional.
Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely done
via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due process of
law.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"The widest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank
space between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution."
Peter McWilliams, author, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".
Stephan Rothstein
> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:hk98955hukogc9t40...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "� Reality Check� �"
>> <rea...@check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>> in message
>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com..
>>> .
>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it> wrote:
>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>
>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer
>>>>> possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>>> unfair.
>> Not to mention unconstitutional.
>
> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely done
> via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due process of
> law.
>
The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one for
the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a punishment
to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment when he was
convicted?
The crux is if changing the punishment is ex post facto or not. Some
think the only thing ex post facto is making an act itself illegal and
then convicting someone for that act before it was illegal. This is
definitely what was intended by the prohibition. But, does changing the
punishment also come under the law? I do not think it is fair, and it
definitely might have changed the original results if there was any type
of plea bargain.
I think a plea bargain conviction could argue that this was not part of
the bargain and therefore violates the agreement, resulting in a new
trial. This might be a better argument than ex post facto since it is
hard to argue the change in punishments breaks the agreement. A person
convicted at a trial does not have nearly as good a claim for ex post
facto or unfairness.
Steve Rothstein
RD (The Sandman)
news:R_SdnUAoCsQj0wnX...@earthlink.com:
> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>> news:hk98955hukogc9t40...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "� Reality Check� �"
>>> <rea...@check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote in message
>>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.co
>>>> m.. .
>>>>> On Aug 23, 11:46 pm, "� Reality Check� �" <real...@check.it>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> RESTRAINING ORDERS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As of September 30, 1996, the new law went into effect. However,
>>>>>> the prohibition also applies to persons convicted of misdemeanor
>>>>>> domestic violence AT ANY TIME PRIOR to September 30, 1996.
>>>>>> Therefore, as of the effective date, any person who has EVER been
>>>>>> convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no
>>>>>> longer possess a firearm or ammunition.
>>>>> Same thing was done when the 1968 GCA was passed banning RKBA to
>>>>> felons and vets with a DD. It was retro-active and many think that
>>>>> unfair.
>>> Not to mention unconstitutional.
>>
>> Why would it be unconstitutional? It it was a DD, it was most likely
>> done via Courts-martial which, IIRC, meets the definition of due
>> process of law.
>>
>
> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment
> when he was convicted?
I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'? I don't remember being
tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although not all
my relatives. ;) I missed the comment on retro-activity. Yet, there
it is plain as day. Damn, guess I'll go have another beer or glass of
wine......do you think that could be the problem? A thousand pardons, my
bad. ;)
Bill Smith
>>
>> The debate for the retroactiveness of the GCA is the same as the one
>> for the Lautenberg Amendment. Is it an ex post facto law to add a
>> punishment to someone's conviction that was not part of the punishment
>> when he was convicted?
>
>I'm sure what's going on.......early alzheimers'? I don't remember being
>tested for it and I still recognize all my friends.....although not all
>my relatives. ;) I missed the comment on retro-activity. Yet, there
>it is plain as day. Damn, guess I'll go have another beer or glass of
>wine......do you think that could be the problem? A thousand pardons, my
>bad. ;)
What he said.
Bill Smith
RD (The Sandman)
What was that? I forgot......
� Reality Check� �
"Stephan Rothstein" <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R_SdnUAoCsQj0wnX...@earthlink.com...
Too bad revoking the RTKBA isn't a criminal punishment.
Now if they attempted to retroactively apply CRIMINAL penalties -- i.e.
prison time --
for acts that occurred in the past that weren't illegal when they occured,
THAT would be
unconstitutional ex-post facto law.
>
> The crux is if changing the punishment is ex post facto or not. Some think
> the only thing ex post facto is making an act itself illegal and then
> convicting someone for that act before it was illegal. This is definitely
> what was intended by the prohibition.
> But, does changing the punishment also come under the law?
Revoking FUTURE RTKBA is not criminal punishment.
> I do not think it is fair, and it definitely might have changed the
> original results if there was any type of plea bargain.
>
> I think a plea bargain conviction could argue that this was not part of
> the bargain and therefore violates the agreement, resulting in a new
> trial.
You conflate "agreement" with "criminal punishment".
> This might be a better argument than ex post facto since it is hard to
> argue the change in punishments breaks the agreement. A person convicted
> at a trial does not have nearly as good a claim for ex post facto or
> unfairness.
Nor does a guilty party who only took the plea bargain to avoid a much
harsher
prison sentence.
� Reality Check� �
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess firearms?
HeyBub
>
> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
> firearms?
Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
In Texas, and most states, the legally blind can obtain a concealed handgun
license. The legless can vote. The deaf are entitled to a lawyer. Those who
stutter can worship as they please (preferably in those denominations that
are not big on responsive readings). And federal troops may not be quartered
in the home of the Bald Jeeter without her consent.
jaf
"� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in message news:7fk334F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> Too bad revoking the RTKBA isn't a criminal punishment.
>
YOU may not consider a firing squad to be criminal punishment, but its effects last for eternity.
Start the revolution NOW.
John
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> Stephan Rothstein <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>> Bill Smith <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:31:41 -0600, "� Reality Check� �"
>>>>> <rea...@check.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <bet...@earthlink.net>
>>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:6d451fb5-00d4-45e7...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.
>>>>>> co m.. .
I don't remember....what do you think?
� Reality Check� �
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjX...@earthlink.com...
>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>
>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>> firearms?
>
> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
Were you born stupid?
FFL Form 4473
Disqualification Questions -
f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having
been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever
been committed to a mental institution?
HeyBub
Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM LICENSED
dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession of a gun.
HeyBub
> drunk and/or intoxicated in a non-legal one. Want to change your
> opinion now?
No, of course not.
edi...@netpath.net
OPPOSITE effect. With two - if not more - federal appeals courts now
ruling in totally opposite ways on this issue, it's obviously going to
the Supreme Court; no way will the Supreme Court let something be a
federal felony in some states - but a constitutional right in others.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
RD (The Sandman)
A key point here. See the word "adjudicated"? And the word "committed"?
Those folks have been through due process. Your statement above shows no
such limitation.
RD (The Sandman)
news:3Mmdne2lcpmAYgjX...@earthlink.com:
While true, if they were adjudicated or committed via due process, they
are considered a prohibited possessor. The fact that they can get around
that check doesn't change it.
RD (The Sandman)
news:o6sd95teu0nhemlvl...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:37:26 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
>>news:7flipnF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>
>>A key point here. See the word "adjudicated"? And the word
>>"committed"? Those folks have been through due process. Your
>>statement above shows no such limitation.
>>
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think you can be committed to a Mental
> Institution without "full adjudication", just for not all that long.
You can for sure if it is voluntary. Involuntary is where I don't know
the answer for sure. I assume it would depend on the term "full
adjudicated" and what it means.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
may well burn your ass tomorrow.
SaPeIsMa
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:03sd95paefo4dr253...@4ax.com...
>
>>
> Unless what they are trying to purchase isn't a "gun". Sportsman's
> Guide is selling pre-1989 Mausers right now in .308 that they claim
> are in "shootable" condition.
>
Don't see it on their web site
Do you have a URL ?
RD (The Sandman)
news:03sd95paefo4dr253...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:38:38 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>>news:3Mmdne2lcpmAYgjX...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> � Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> � Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>>> firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>>
>>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>>
>>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>>
>>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>>
>>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which
>>>> includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own
>>>> affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>>
>>> Form 4473 is used to PURCHASE a firearm from a FEDERAL FIREARM
>>> LICENSED dealer. There are many other ways to come into possession
>>> of a gun.
>>
>>While true, if they were adjudicated or committed via due process,
>>they are considered a prohibited possessor. The fact that they can
>>get around that check doesn't change it.
>>
> Unless what they are trying to purchase isn't a "gun". Sportsman's
> Guide is selling pre-1989 Mausers right now in .308 that they claim
> are in "shootable" condition.
Hmmmm, I bought an 1891 Argentine Mauser years ago at Monkey Wards for
$19.95. My brother in law still has it and uses it for a guest gun if
someone goes deer hunting with him and doesn't have one. I
"sporterized" the stock and glass bedded the barrel but it still has open
iron sights. Bet it will be a long time before I find another deal like
that. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
RD (The Sandman)
news:10sd9510i1aoh0ak2...@4ax.com:
> There are even firearms that aren't "guns" or require a 4473.
Black powder for one. Anyone facing most of these would have a rough go
of it:
http://www.cabelas.com/black-powder.shtml
> There
> is a guy in NYC being given the living hell because he refuses to
> register a Flintlock Pistol.
;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
SaPeIsMa
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:LK-dneDC8tNMagvX...@posted.cpinternet...
Found it
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/pre-1898-mauser-rifles.aspx?a=532481
$399
SaPeIsMa
> http://shop.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/pre-1898-mauser-rifles.aspx?a=532481
>
> It is also in the Catalog I got in the mail yesterday called the
> "Fantastic Fall Sale", page 19
> --
I followed up with another post after I found it
I find $399 a bit high for an "old" Mauser
Wonder who did the .308 conversion on it ?
� Reality Check� �
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
Stay ignorant, fool.
Somewhere there's a prison cell with your name on the door.
� Reality Check� �
> "� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
> news:7flipnF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>>
>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjX...@earthlink.com...
>>>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>> firearms?
>>>
>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>
>> Were you born stupid?
>>
>> FFL Form 4473
>>
>> Disqualification Questions -
>>
>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>
> A key point here. See the word "adjudicated"? And the word "committed"?
> Those folks have been through due process. Your statement above shows no
> such limitation.
The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because of a
disability."
If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be a
disability, "due process" or not.
Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The
"rights" would be
denied based upon the disability.
� Reality Check� �
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:37:26 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"� Reality Check� �" <rea...@check.it> wrote in
>>news:7flipnF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:UaydnRlDOc1KtQjX...@earthlink.com...
>>>>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Should people who are non-compos mentis be allowed to possess
>>>>> firearms?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. We don't deny one their rights because of a disability.
>>>
>>> Were you born stupid?
>>>
>>> FFL Form 4473
>>>
>>> Disqualification Questions -
>>>
>>> f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes
>>> having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or
>>> have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
>>
>>A key point here. See the word "adjudicated"? And the word "committed"?
>>Those folks have been through due process. Your statement above shows no
>>such limitation.
>>
> Institution without "full adjudication", just for not all that long.
Quite true, depending on the State.
HeyBub
>>
>> A key point here. See the word "adjudicated"? And the word
>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process. Your
>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>
> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
> of a disability."
>
> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
> a disability, "due process" or not.
>
> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The
> "rights" would be
> denied based upon the disability.
Stevie Wonder can still buy a gun in Texas and he can qualify for a
Concealed Handgun Permit (here and in Tennessee, to name two states).
My ex-wife was as insane as the third monkey on Noah's gangplank, but I bet
she could hold it in long enough to buy a gun or get a CHL.
So far as I know, there is no physical or mental disability that prevents
one from owning a gun.
In the case of mental disability, it has to be an adjudicated one. There are
plenty of crazy people walking about that have not been found loco in a
court and there are some that are as sane as the judge that committed them.
It's the adjudication that counts, not the condition.
RD (The Sandman)
IOW, you feel that someone should be denied the right to have a gun
simply because his neighbor thinks he is mentally incompetent?
> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not.
However, it is not an official disability until it has been adjudicated.
> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
*someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW, you don't feel
you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your neighbor.
The point is that they don't fit your cite. The 4473 specifically states
"adjudicated". Learn what that means.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
RD (The Sandman)
news:kfmdnSQRtY-VKAfX...@earthlink.com:
Exactomundo!!
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Life is like a bowl of habeneros...what you do today
� Reality Check� �
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>� Reality Check� � wrote:
>>>
>>> A key point here. See the word "adjudicated"? And the word
>>> "committed"? Those folks have been through due process. Your
>>> statement above shows no such limitation.
>>
>> The OP's FALSE assertion was "We don't deny one their rights because
>> of a disability."
>>
>> If Stevie Wonder were to be "adjudicated" as blind, it would still be
>> a disability, "due process" or not.
>>
>> Mental illness is a disability, whether it's adjudicated or not. The
>> "rights" would be
>> denied based upon the disability.
>
> Stevie Wonder can still buy a gun in Texas and he can qualify for a
> Concealed Handgun Permit (here and in Tennessee, to name two states).
>
> My ex-wife was as insane as the third monkey on Noah's gangplank,
ROTFLMAO!
� Reality Check� �
Bullshit. It's a disability as soon as diagnoses by a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
>
>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>
> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW, you don't feel
> you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your neighbor.
You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being denied
based upon THE disability.
Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified to make
MEDICAL
determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS are the ones who make
MEDICAL diagnoses.
RD (The Sandman)
Not as far as the loss of rights and the 4473 are concerned. There is a
tad more to it than your family doctor simply saying, "Yep, he is
insane."
>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>
>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW, you don't
>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>> neighbor.
>
> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
> denied based upon THE disability.
Yep. That evidence is presented to the court. It may be a full court
(rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
right, not the medical authorities.
> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
> to make MEDICAL determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which removes
the right, not the doctor. The doctor simply testifies just like he
would in a murder trial.
� Reality Check� �
Prove it, liar.
>
>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>
>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW, you don't
>>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>>> neighbor.
>>
>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
>> denied based upon THE disability.
>
> Yep. That evidence is presented to the court. It may be a full court
> (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
> right, not the medical authorities.
Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
the MENTAL DEFECT.
>
>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
>> to make MEDICAL determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
>> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>
> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which removes
> the right, not the doctor. The doctor simply testifies just like he
> would in a murder trial.
WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.
RD (The Sandman)
@mid.individual.net:
Due process.
>>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>>>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW, you don't
>>>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>>>> neighbor.
>>>
>>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
>>> denied based upon THE disability.
>>
>> Yep. That evidence is presented to the court. It may be a full court
>> (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
>> right, not the medical authorities.
>
> Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
> the MENTAL DEFECT.
Never said different, oh, illiterate one. I said it was the judge (or
the court) who removes the right. Do you understand the difference or am
I talking to a stump?
>>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
>>> to make MEDICAL determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
>>> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>>
>> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which
removes
>> the right, not the doctor. The doctor simply testifies just like he
>> would in a murder trial.
>
> WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.
Didn't say it was. Again, your reading diability is rearing its ugly
head.
� Reality Check� �
Medical or Psychological diagnoses by MD's need no such legal process.
>
>>>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply because
>>>>> *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW, you don't
>>>>> feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the whims of your
>>>>> neighbor.
>>>>
>>>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are being
>>>> denied based upon THE disability.
>>>
>>> Yep. That evidence is presented to the court. It may be a full court
>>> (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who removes the
>>> right, not the medical authorities.
>>
>> Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
>> the MENTAL DEFECT.
>
> Never said different, oh, illiterate one. I said it was the judge (or
> the court) who removes the right. Do you understand the difference or am
> I talking to a stump?
Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their rights
because of a disability."
So have you been chasing your tail around again, Ardy?
>
>>>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even qualified
>>>> to make MEDICAL determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS / PSYCHIATRISTS
>>>> are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>>>
>>> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which
> removes
>>> the right, not the doctor. The doctor simply testifies just like he
>>> would in a murder trial.
>>
>> WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.
>
> Didn't say it was. Again, your reading diability is rearing its ugly
> head.
Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their rights
because of a disability."
RD (The Sandman)
That depends on what you are trying to do with that diagnosis. If it is
to incarcerate someone or remove their rights, yes, it does.
>>>>>>> The "rights" would be denied based upon the disability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, in what you are saying rights would be denied simply
>>>>>> because *someone* thought they were mentally incompetent. IOW,
>>>>>> you don't feel you (or anyone else) should be protected from the
>>>>>> whims of your neighbor.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're paranoid hysteria doesn't change the FACT that they are
>>>>> being denied based upon THE disability.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. That evidence is presented to the court. It may be a full
>>>> court (rarely) or simply a judge, however, it is the court who
>>>> removes the right, not the medical authorities.
>>>
>>> Nope, it's the diagnosis from the MEDICAL EXPERTS that determines
>>> the MENTAL DEFECT.
>>
>> Never said different, oh, illiterate one. I said it was the judge
>> (or the court) who removes the right. Do you understand the
>> difference or am I talking to a stump?
>
> Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their
> rights because of a disability."
>
> So have you been chasing your tail around again, Ardy?
Two points...
One, that wasn't my premise. I responded to that same statement with
yes, we can under due process. That is where you fell apart.
Two, I am not chasing my tail. I have stated the same thing throughout
this thread. If you have trouble or can't understand that, it isn't my
problem.
>>>>> Courts don't DIAGNOSE medical conditions, they aren't even
>>>>> qualified to make MEDICAL determinations. Licensed PHYSICIANS /
>>>>> PSYCHIATRISTS are the ones who make MEDICAL diagnoses.
>>>>
>>>> No one is claiming any different, however, it is the court which
>> removes
>>>> the right, not the doctor. The doctor simply testifies just like
>>>> he would in a murder trial.
>>>
>>> WRONG AGAIN. The hearing isn't criminal.
>>
>> Didn't say it was. Again, your reading diability is rearing its ugly
>> head.
>
> Original <false> premise asserted by poster: "We don't deny one their
> rights because of a disability."
Not my premise. Your turn.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Those with the biggest mouths about taking guns away, also seem to have
the smallest balls since they will have to have someone else do it for
them.