Man loses Second Amendment rights

[danielpalos]

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?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

This was the Ohio State Constitution not the US Constitution

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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?

If he's that dangerous, he should be in jail.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Wrong to take guns.
If he intended murder, his old guns being taken away would not at all deter him one bit.
Nor does murder require a gun.
Nor could any penalty for obtaining one illegally at all succeed at preventing him from getting a gun.
But his need for guns could be legitimate.
Could be a dangerous neighborhood, it could be an important sport to him, he could support himself by gun resale, he could be required to be armed for a security job,

What this does is allow a woman to illegally harm an ex, with no legal justification.
Terrible precedent.
One that would greatly increase the odds of the woman's death, not decrease it.

 

[Open Bolt]

What do you think? Good decision?

I don't have enough data.

If his conviction was part of a plea bargain where he was not stripped of his guns, and they then added the gun restrictions after the fact: bad decision.

If he was convicted by a jury or by some sort of trial before a judge, or if he pled guilty knowing that he was forfeiting his gun rights: good decision.