Although I am unaware of a challenge to a Lautenberg-based discharge being brought in the military context, ?caselaw since the SCOTUS decision in??District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) has limited the holding in that case far more than I would have expected. Heller?made clear that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals, not just to militias, and held that individuals have a constitutional right to possess firearms in their homes for self-defense purposes. Lautenberg, of course, bans ownership of any firearm to those convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence. The Army has extended that ban to felony DV convictions.
The Seventh Circuit has upheld Lautenberg against a Heller?challenge; United States v. Skoien, 613 F.3d 648, 644 (7th Cir. 2010), as has the Eleventh Circuit.??United States v. White,?593 F.3d 1199, 1205?06 (11th Cir.2010). Thus far, no Circuit Court has disagreed.
For those who would like a primer on the full breadth of Second Amendment challenges since Heller, a?new District Court opinion from Illinois is pretty comprehensive in its discussion. Moore v. Madigan, 2012 WL 344760. In short, most courts have limited Heller to the right to own a firearm in one?s dwelling or place of business, unless you are a convicted criminal. Moore v Madigan concludes that?Illinois can make it illegal to carry in public.
Posted by Jim Clark
paul pierce strawberry festival knicks strikeforce tate vs rousey ciaa lindsay lohan the monkees
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন