I found this on Christian World View Network.
We are in deep trouble. Thanks to Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg.
And Frank "the louse" Lautenburg.
Springfield, Virginia. On February 24, 2009, by a vote of 7 to 2, the
United States Supreme Court handed the notorious anti-gun New Jersey
Senator Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) a victory in his war against gun
owners, in the case of United States v. Randy Edward Hayes.
Larry Pratt, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation,
commented: "Here we had a case of pure statutory construction.
Sadly, Justice Ginsburg creatively reshuffled the words of the
statute to interpret it in the way Senator Lautenberg wanted it to be
read. The Second Amendment was not an issue in this case, as it was
not a constitutional challenge under Heller. Nevertheless, we are
disappointed in the majority's ruling."
In agreement with an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of Gun
Owners Foundation (GOF), and in dissent from this ruling, Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia accused the majority of having
written an opinion "restructuring the statute and adding words"
to the law that prohibits any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence from owning or otherwise possessing a firearm.
According to the Court majority's revised version of the statute, a
person loses his right to have a firearm if he is convicted of a
simple assault or battery if there is information in a police report
(or some other nonjudicial record) indicating that the victim was in
some way "domestically" related to the convicted person. In other
words, a person could lose his firearm rights solely on the basis of
the unsubstantiated accusation of the victim or even a neighbor.
As Chief Justice Roberts observed, "the majority's approach will
entail significant problems in application": "it will often be
necessary to go beyond the fact of conviction and 'engage in an
elaborate factfinding process regarding the defendant's prior
offens....'"
The GOF amicus brief spelled out in some detail those practical
problems, including the unreasonable risk that a prospective gun
buyer may be accused of filing a false statement on the ATF 4473 Form
in which he must swear that he has not been convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence and the inherent unreliability of
information contained in police reports of emotionally-charged
incidents that lead to assault accusations.
But these warnings fell on a deaf-eared majority. Instead of holding
the government to a strict interpretation of the statutory language,
the majority preferred to rely upon the single voice of Senator
Lautenburg who, as sponsor of the new law, delivered a self-serving
speech on the Senate floor about statutory language inserted in the
"last-minute" by Senate and House conferees behind closed doors
that even the majority found to be "awkward."
Even more significant, the majority justified its strained
construction of the statute in order to meet the gun-control policy
goals of Senator Lautenburg. Thus, it ruled that it would be worth it
to increase the risk that an innocent person would be denied the right
to purchase a firearm, in order to decrease the risk that a
"guilty" person might escape undetected by the instant criminal
background check.
Gun Owners Foundation is the litigating sister-organization of Gun
Owners of America, Inc.
We are in deep trouble. Thanks to Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg.
And Frank "the louse" Lautenburg.
Springfield, Virginia. On February 24, 2009, by a vote of 7 to 2, the
United States Supreme Court handed the notorious anti-gun New Jersey
Senator Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ) a victory in his war against gun
owners, in the case of United States v. Randy Edward Hayes.
Larry Pratt, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation,
commented: "Here we had a case of pure statutory construction.
Sadly, Justice Ginsburg creatively reshuffled the words of the
statute to interpret it in the way Senator Lautenberg wanted it to be
read. The Second Amendment was not an issue in this case, as it was
not a constitutional challenge under Heller. Nevertheless, we are
disappointed in the majority's ruling."
In agreement with an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of Gun
Owners Foundation (GOF), and in dissent from this ruling, Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia accused the majority of having
written an opinion "restructuring the statute and adding words"
to the law that prohibits any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence from owning or otherwise possessing a firearm.
According to the Court majority's revised version of the statute, a
person loses his right to have a firearm if he is convicted of a
simple assault or battery if there is information in a police report
(or some other nonjudicial record) indicating that the victim was in
some way "domestically" related to the convicted person. In other
words, a person could lose his firearm rights solely on the basis of
the unsubstantiated accusation of the victim or even a neighbor.
As Chief Justice Roberts observed, "the majority's approach will
entail significant problems in application": "it will often be
necessary to go beyond the fact of conviction and 'engage in an
elaborate factfinding process regarding the defendant's prior
offens....'"
The GOF amicus brief spelled out in some detail those practical
problems, including the unreasonable risk that a prospective gun
buyer may be accused of filing a false statement on the ATF 4473 Form
in which he must swear that he has not been convicted of a misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence and the inherent unreliability of
information contained in police reports of emotionally-charged
incidents that lead to assault accusations.
But these warnings fell on a deaf-eared majority. Instead of holding
the government to a strict interpretation of the statutory language,
the majority preferred to rely upon the single voice of Senator
Lautenburg who, as sponsor of the new law, delivered a self-serving
speech on the Senate floor about statutory language inserted in the
"last-minute" by Senate and House conferees behind closed doors
that even the majority found to be "awkward."
Even more significant, the majority justified its strained
construction of the statute in order to meet the gun-control policy
goals of Senator Lautenburg. Thus, it ruled that it would be worth it
to increase the risk that an innocent person would be denied the right
to purchase a firearm, in order to decrease the risk that a
"guilty" person might escape undetected by the instant criminal
background check.
Gun Owners Foundation is the litigating sister-organization of Gun
Owners of America, Inc.
