Due Process
Post-Heller Case Holding a Gun Control Law Unconstitutional:
Accordingly, the Adam Walsh Amendments [the name of the statute involved here -EV] violate due process by requiring that, as a condition of release on bail, an accused person be required to surrender his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm without giving that person an opportunity to contest whether such a condition is reasonably necessary in his case to secure the safety of the community. Because the Amendments do not permit an individualized determination, they are unconstitutional on their face. The Government’s application to impose as a condition of bail that Mr. Arzberger not possess a firearm is therefore denied
Also, lack of due process is an issue with orders of protection.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
lol -ev aments.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
What about Lautenburg? Some guys plead guilty on misdemeanor abuse/battery (?) charges in order to avoid an expensive court fight. Later they find that their 2nd Amendment rights are gone *poof* with no recourse and no ability to go back and do-over.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
i think it’d be argued that the plea is the due process.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I believe that Uncle is right on that. What about TRO’s, though?
They are often pro forma requests, and granted just as automatically, in any legal dispute, especially divorces, even though there may be no factual basis for their issuance. Yet, the gun rights are lost without any opportunity for the target of such an order to respond or to demand any proof that he/she might accurately be deemed even a potential threat, let alone an actual threat.
January 12th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Yup.
There’s (was?) a judge in Knoxville that handed out TRO’s like party favors with any divorce, no matter how amicable.
If someone got declined on a TICs check and looked confused as to why, you could ask “Have you gotten divorced recently?” and amazingly often they’d say “Yes! How did you know?”
January 12th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
TROs are granted automatically in some states; and it would be a good challenge in one of those states.
January 13th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
The problem with Lautenberg is that if you were convicted of DV in 1975 before the law went into effect, you are still a prohibited person.