.
I was just checking out the oppositions website and saw this. This can't be right.


It says that on Nov. 10th, SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) was hearing U.S. v Hayes, a case involving the Lautenberg Amendment.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... lease=1084

.

Pretty much.

I am sure you will be shocked that the Brady people summarized it in a way to support their position.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?tit ... s_v._Hayes

Its a very minute aspect of the law, more concerned with the esoteric descriptions of what the Law under which he was convicted as reflected in Lautenberg.

Its is not as listed an argument that Lautenberg illegally "grandfathered" in a whole new class of restricted people after the fact, which is the real crime of lautenberg, but its an argument that he was convicted of a crime which does not list "domestic relationship" as one of its conditions. As I read it, he was arrested on a Domestic, but the court allowed him to plead guilty to an assault charge, which did not include the wording "domestic relationship" which he feels does not place him under the conditions of Lautenberg.

As far as i know, and the real lawyers will weigh in here on it, but Lautenberg is the ONLY federal place where felony type loss of rights can or are levied against misdemeanor offenses.

I haven't been following this one closely, but after skimming through the oral arguments I'm not too worried about the outcome.

Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy (Mr. 5th Vote) seemed to be skeptical of the Government's position. I'm assuming Alito and Thomas would vote favorably as well.

On the other hand, it would be easy for Congress to change the law if they don't like how the S. Court rules in this case. Even if we "win" this battle, Congress could change the rules and take the win away.

One fight at a time.