Your response is very short sighted. For example, in 1985 how many guys would have gotten in a fight with their brother over Susie Rottencrotch, only to pay a $50 fine to the Justice of the Peace and then have their Rights taken away years later due to the Lautenberg Amendment?
Looking at this more closely:
The Lautenburg Amendment defines 'domestic violence' as a crime between intimate partners, under which siblings do not fall:
18U.S.C.§921(a)(33)(A)(ii):
....committed by a current or former spouse,parent,or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent,or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
If you have a child with your sister, this may apply, else it does not.
EVERYBODY in Georgia who wants a divorce must submit a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER with their divorce petition OR the policy is your divorce petition will be rejected as a matter of policy. Read this paragraph again.
For a restring order to DQ someone under the Lautenberg Amendment it must meet the following conditions:
- It was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
- It restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
- It includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child;
- It explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;
See bold. I suspect a mutual restraining order - which under what I found in GA law, is not a VPO - submitted by the parties to a divorce, includes any such finding.
Well well, who do we have here? Perry Mason? Perhaps Denny Crane?
I took the time to look at the actual law.
Given your incorrect interpretations, maybe you should try it a little more often.
I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.
Statutes can seem to be crystal clear to the average person, but judges, not political hacks on a discussion board ultimately interpret the laws. Your interpretation is a private interpretation not backed by any case law citations.
I realize that you do not understand the Constitution nor the meaning of
unalienable Rights. It really has to hurt when someone points out your errors and drives you to want to double down and be right. The problem is you are wrong. And, in giving the government more and more power, you negate your own arguments to keep and bear Arms.
Unalienable Rights are given by a god - government OR they are bestowed upon you by a Creator. I have to post this from time to time, so let me show you what legal citations look like and what the law actually IS with respect to the Right to keep and bear Arms:
“
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
“
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
According to Wikipedia:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
Those are the
FIRST court decisions all the way up to and including the United States Supreme Court. Our forefathers created three branches of government. The United States Supreme Court gets to
interpret the law. There is no provision for them to get to come back and
reinterpret the law. That is called legislating from the bench. It was something the forefathers warned against. So, while the system may have the
POWER to declare this or that about the Second Amendment, they certainly lack the
AUTHORITY.
Sooo... what I do is look at the ORIGINAL rulings. If a later court contradicts the earliest United States Supreme Court ruling, I ignore it. If, OTOH, a ruling expands on a previous ruling that enhances it or makes it a bit more plain, I will use it. I lobby every gun owner to do the same. Otherwise, the law is not worth the paper it's written on. DeWine wants to "
improve existing systems" and the existing systems contradict the Constitution as originally written and intended.
As for the Lautenberg Amendment, I have actually litigated it in court. Have you?
