tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6955773885723738597.post9203641942261143388..comments2023-04-12T10:18:45.706-04:00Comments on Second Amendment Freedom- Firearms Rights: Man Convicted of Domestic Violence Wins In Federal Lautenberg Law Case..Gun Rights Still Intactjghhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02887891532677660002noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6955773885723738597.post-15657078095816172122013-01-23T00:42:34.941-05:002013-01-23T00:42:34.941-05:00FWIW, This guy lost in the end..
A person to whom...FWIW, This guy lost in the end..<br /><br />A person to whom a statute properly applies can't obtain relief based on arguments that a differently situated person might present. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). Although the Salerno principle has been controversial, and the Justices have allowed “overbreadth” arguments when dealing with laws that restrict speech and reach substantially more conduct than the justifications advanced for the statute support, see Stevens, 130 S.Ct. at 1587, the Court has continued to cite Salerno favorably in other situations. See, e.g., Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449–50, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008); cf. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 167–68, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d 480 (2007) (observing that “facial” challenges to statutes generally are restricted to litigation under the First Amendment). If convictions may be used to limit where sex offenders can live (and whether they must register), see Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003), a disqualification-on-conviction statute such as § 922(g)(9) also is generally proper. Whether a misdemeanant who has been law abiding for an extended period must be allowed to carry guns again, even if he cannot satisfy § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), is a question not presented today. There will be time enough to consider that subject when it arises.<br /><br />The Honorable Kagan refused to hear this case at the Supreme court a year later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6955773885723738597.post-22064074066192510372009-11-26T16:15:04.477-05:002009-11-26T16:15:04.477-05:00Great rendition,and double linked back here via th...Great rendition,and double linked back here via the "Source" link,as well as in the comments. <br /><br />Keep up the good fight!Patrick Sperryhttp://patricksperry.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com