Supreme Court To Hear A Lautenberg Amendment Case

By Dean Weingarten

Gun Watch
Gun Watch

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Castleman, a Tennessee case involving the Lautenberg amendment that deprives individuals of second amendment rights if convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

James Alvin Castleman plead guilty to a crime of domestic assault in 2001, then in 2008 he was found in possession of firearms and convicted of illegal possession of firearms under the Lautenberg amendment.

A federal judge said that the Tennessee law did not meet the requirements of the federal law for domestic violence, and dismissed the charges.  The Sixth Circuit, on appeal, upheld the findings of the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.   The Department of Justice, under Eric Holder, is appealing the decision of the Sixth Circuit to the Supreme Court.

Scotusblog reports:

Justice Elena Kagan is not participating in this case.

A similar case in Wisconsin has resulted in the only appeal to a refusal to grant a concealed carry permit since the State passed its concealed carry reform in 2011.

There does not appear to be any reference to second amendment rights in the appeal.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

More articles at Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973.  He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

8
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Benjayfrost jackGAdam Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
jay
Guest
jay

FOLKS – Check Out The Shirey case #B238355!!!

frost jack
Guest
frost jack

I can understand taking people’s gun rights for a felony or serious domestic crime, but I was a victim
your a dipsh*t moron …

G
Guest
G

we need to kill the Lautenberg law. It is keeping ppeople from working.

Adam
Guest
Adam

The Lautenberg amendment is ridiculous. I had an ex, who was a stripper. I was with her for 3.5 years. One time, she assaulted me after a night of doing meth. I sat on her and held her arms until she stopped. When she calmed down a bit, I was completely bloodied from her biting, kicking, punching me. When I was getting up, she started at it again. I went for the phone and she ripped it out of the wall. We were at a hotel so I went and had the office call the police. I was immediately arrested… Read more »

Bama
Guest
Bama

The Lautenberg Amendment is an excessive, cruel, and an unjust punishment. In 1998, at aged 22, I pleaded not guilty to Domestic Assault and Battery and was found guilty in the state of Virginia. I was sentenced to 30 days jail-time suspended and 1 year “good-behavior” probation towards wife. I thought if I just explained the truth that I won’t need a lawyer. I felt confident because I never hit or physically abuse my now ex-wife. But beyond my wife’s wishes, the state prosecuted and convicted me. We finally divorced in 2001. Now, it has been 15 years. Since then,… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

Same thing happend to me its a BS law

Becker
Guest
Becker

Only felonies are reasons to deny gun ownership. The first thing a woman will do is claim abuse to get back at a husband just because she is angry about something else. The guy ends up loosing his gun rights for the rest of his life and never being able to get a job again.

TSgt B
Guest
TSgt B

Any moron with 2 or more active brain cells can easily see that the “Lautenberg” amendment should be as dead as its’ author. This POS is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from enacting “ex post facto”, otherwise known as RETROACTIVE, law. If the Supreme Court has any integrity left after the Obamacare decision, it will strike down Lautenberg in its entirety.