Man loses Second Amendment rights

[Otis Mayfield]

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday a Warren County judge should not have restored the gun rights of a man convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and the man's ex-wife could use Marsy's Law to block the judge's ruling.

Marsy's Law is a constitutional amendment that provides for crime victims' rights approved by voters in 2017.

Warren County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Peeler had granted Roy Ewing's request for relief from his federal firearms restriction. Ewing's ex-wife, Jamie Suwalski, unsuccessfully contested Peeler's decision in the 12th District Court of Appeals so she took it to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The high court decided in a 4-3 opinion that under Marsy's Law, Suwalski had a right to seek an order to block Ewing from possessing guns.

Ohio Supreme Court rules crime victim rights trump gun rights in Warren County case

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a man convicted of domestic violence shouldn't get his gun rights back and his ex-wife could invoke Marsy's Law.

www.cincinnati.com

So the ex wife says her husband is going to kill her. The cops take his guns away and he can't be anywhere near a gun. He appeals the decision. He wins. She appeals his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and she wins. Man remains gunless.

What do you think? Good decision?

 

[occupied]

Men who beat women are pond scum. He should never be allowed near a gun or a vagina.

 

[pknopp]

He lost his rights because he assaulted her not just because she said she was afraid he would kill her. I think for anyone to post an opinion the actual fact must be presented.

 

[JGalt]

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday a Warren County judge should not have restored the gun rights of a man convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and the man's ex-wife could use Marsy's Law to block the judge's ruling.

Marsy's Law is a constitutional amendment that provides for crime victims' rights approved by voters in 2017.

Warren County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Peeler had granted Roy Ewing's request for relief from his federal firearms restriction. Ewing's ex-wife, Jamie Suwalski, unsuccessfully contested Peeler's decision in the 12th District Court of Appeals so she took it to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The high court decided in a 4-3 opinion that under Marsy's Law, Suwalski had a right to seek an order to block Ewing from possessing guns.

Ohio Supreme Court rules crime victim rights trump gun rights in Warren County case

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a man convicted of domestic violence shouldn't get his gun rights back and his ex-wife could invoke Marsy's Law.

www.cincinnati.com

So the ex wife says her husband is going to kill her. The cops take his guns away and he can't be anywhere near a gun. He appeals the decision. He wins. She appeals his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and she wins. Man remains gunless.

What do you think? Good decision?

No idea. My wife has her own guns, so you'd never catch me committing domestic abuse.

We have a mutually understanding.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Men who beat women often escalate their violence against their women, eventually with it culminating in the violent death of the woman or the woman killing their attacker. I do believe that there must be sufficient evidence to prove that an accused did indeed violently attack the other party. There should be no removal of any right, without sufficient evidence.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

He should never be allowed near a gun or a vagina.

lol...the litmus test for white liberal bona fides

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think?

The thread title is wrong – no Second Amendment rights were ‘lost.’

Laws designating individuals to be prohibited persons are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such laws and measures.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good decision?

It’s a lawful, Constitutional decision – consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He lost his rights because he assaulted her not just because she said she was afraid he would kill her. I think for anyone to post an opinion the actual fact must be presented.

Again, no rights were ‘lost.’

He was found guilty of the crime of domestic violence; he was afforded comprehensive due process.

As a consequence he is now considered a prohibited person.

 

[pknopp]

Again, no rights were ‘lost.’

He was found guilty of the crime of domestic violence; he was afforded comprehensive due process.

As a consequence he is now considered a prohibited person.

I have no idea what you are rambling about. He did lose his rights. He lost them through due process which is how the Constitution specified how one loses their rights.

 

[whitehall]

The system works.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The thread title is wrong – no Second Amendment rights were ‘lost.’

You don't even -try- to hide the fact you're lying.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such laws and measures.

Tell us why you believe the TX abortion law is constitutional.

 

[Abatis]

So the ex wife says her husband is going to kill her. The cops take his guns away and he can't be anywhere near a gun. He appeals the decision. He wins. She appeals his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and she wins. Man remains gunless.

What do you think? Good decision?

It isn't as cut and dried as you present here; there are many moving parts and contested jurisdictions and, as always with the 922(g)(9) Lautenberg Amendment, legal conflicts . . . Most often between the intended federal rights disablement and non-uniform laws in the state's "domestic violence" statutes that flatly trigger the disablement. For some states their misdemeanor convictions aren't always "violent" acts and then as we see here, muddy jurisdictions and procedural hiccups in a state's process in restoring the right to arms.

This case is further complicated by Ohio's Marsy's Law, a victim's rights law that doesn't specifically speak to this situation but was held to apply.

It is hard to argue against a domestic abuser losing the right to own a gun but due process always must be afforded in the rights revocation and then, restored properly if it to be federally recognized. It seems here the guy was not disabled under state law from simply owning a gun but was federally . . .

It's a safe bet to say this case isn't settled yet.

 

[Abatis]

He lost his rights because he assaulted her not just because she said she was afraid he would kill her. I think for anyone to post an opinion the actual fact must be presented.

And it seems (from the article), her rights in the process were not recognized in the first review, (where his gun rights were restored), she wasn't fully heard on the matter. Her position was represented by an affidavit rather than actual testimony which was the proper process.

 

[Abatis]

The thread title is wrong – no Second Amendment rights were ‘lost.’

Well, the legally disablement of his federally recognized right to possess arms and ammunition, (AKA, his "2nd Amendment right"), certainly occurred . . .

Laws designating individuals to be prohibited persons are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner violating the Second Amendment.

And if due process were followed perfectly, challenges to firearms prohibitions under 18 U.S.C §922(g)(1-9) wouldn't need to be heard.

Here's the §922(g)(9) federal circuit's case law (just the domestic violence prohibition), and this list 4 years old . . .

https://www.bwjp.org/assets/ncpoffc-18-u.s.c.-922g9-case-law-2017.pdf

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such laws and measures.

Of course they have, just off the top of my head . . . U.S. Lewis v. U.S., 445 U.S. 55 (1980) for felon dispossession, Caron v U.S., 524 U.S. 308 (1998) for felon firearm dispossession / rights restoration, U.S. v Hayes, 555 U. S. 415 (2009) for the domestic violence dispossession.

 

[2aguy]

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Thursday a Warren County judge should not have restored the gun rights of a man convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and the man's ex-wife could use Marsy's Law to block the judge's ruling.

Marsy's Law is a constitutional amendment that provides for crime victims' rights approved by voters in 2017.

Warren County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Peeler had granted Roy Ewing's request for relief from his federal firearms restriction. Ewing's ex-wife, Jamie Suwalski, unsuccessfully contested Peeler's decision in the 12th District Court of Appeals so she took it to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The high court decided in a 4-3 opinion that under Marsy's Law, Suwalski had a right to seek an order to block Ewing from possessing guns.

Ohio Supreme Court rules crime victim rights trump gun rights in Warren County case

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a man convicted of domestic violence shouldn't get his gun rights back and his ex-wife could invoke Marsy's Law.

www.cincinnati.com

So the ex wife says her husband is going to kill her. The cops take his guns away and he can't be anywhere near a gun. He appeals the decision. He wins. She appeals his appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court and she wins. Man remains gunless.

What do you think? Good decision?

Depends.........who is telling the truth......

Also, if he wants to kill her...he is going to kill her.....guns aren't the issue. If he is an actual threat, she needs to get her own gun and carry it....this court win, and a restraining order will not stop him if he is an actual threat.

 

[Rogue AI]

I could understand if there was a felony conviction, but not for a misdemeanor. That bar is simply too low.

 

[Abatis]

I could understand if there was a felony conviction, but not for a misdemeanor. That bar is simply too low.

And that has been an issue since the Lautenberg Amendment language was added to the law. It has had to be cleaned-up and clarified and amended and tweaked as unintended and unforeseen outcomes and effects of the law (at least by the idiots writing the law) have been realized.

Biggest "uh-oh" was the effect of forcing a shit-ton of cops to not be able to have a gun, until a special carve out was written to allow wife-beating cops to be immune to the law.

Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Answers to some common questions on the use or purchase of a firearm(s) by a person convicted of a domestic violence crime.

www.atf.gov

 

[Otis Mayfield]

I could understand if there was a felony conviction, but not for a misdemeanor. That bar is simply too low.

He might've just yelled at her and the neighbors called the cops because they were being too loud.

 

[2aguy]

And that has been an issue since the Lautenberg Amendment language was added to the law. It has had to be cleaned-up and clarified and amended and tweaked as unintended and unforeseen outcomes and effects of the law (at least by the idiots writing the law) have been realized.

Biggest "uh-oh" was the effect of forcing a shit-ton of cops to not be able to have a gun, until a special carve out was written to allow wife-beating cops to be immune to the law.

Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Answers to some common questions on the use or purchase of a firearm(s) by a person convicted of a domestic violence crime.

www.atf.gov

as unintended and unforeseen outcomes

I usually agree with what you post.......but the anti-gun extremists do not have unintended or unforeseen outcomes with the anti-gun laws they pass.......they know exactly what will happen...how do you know? Because their unintended and unforeseen outcomes never adhere to the advantage of gun owners.........

That is why, when the anti-gun extremists on U.S.message start prattling on about Universal Background Checks, you know what they really want is gun registration........or when they talk about Red Flag laws and then find out it happens to scoop up normal gun owners too...