Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (22425)	6/27/2006 4:55:47 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543975

This is the case I was thinking of. The link below is to an older article, but it describes the case and the controversy: "The case of the United States v. Timothy Joe Emerson serves as an example of the key role the Justice department plays in the legal battle over gun control. Emerson, a Texas physician, was indicted in 1999 for possessing and brandishing a gun in violation of the restraining order taken out by his estranged wife during their divorce. Under the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994, anyone subject to a restraining order is barred from owning a gun. Emerson fit that bill. But his public defender, noting that it was never proven in court that Emerson acted violently, argued that Emerson’s Second Amendment rights were infringed upon by an unfair gun control statute. US District Judge Sam Cummings agreed, and threw out the charges. His opinion caused an earthquake in legal circles. “It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment rights,” Cummings wrote, a rare instance in which a judge cited the Constitution on behalf of a gun owner." freerepublic.com