A reminder of why reloaders should pay attention to the law...

[awalker1829]

He’ll most likely plead. Likelihood of this case going to trial is very low. Second Amendment is not a recognized defense. The Supreme Court has previously established that the Second Amendment does allow Congress to establish reasonable restrictions. Unless the Court reverses itself, that interpretation remains the law.

In a criminal case, a defense is an established legal theory that is applied to basically explain why a defendant should not be convicted or why they should be convicted on a lesser charge than originally charged.

As for Mr. Haig, he has already been interviewed by the United States Pretrial Services Office and is now under their supervision. His information will have also been transmitted to the United States Probation Officer so that they may prepare the Presentencing reports.

[capt14k]

He’ll most likely plead. Likelihood of this case going to trial is very low. Second Amendment is not a recognized defense. The Supreme Court has previously established that the Second Amendment does allow Congress to establish reasonable restrictions. Unless the Court reverses itself, that interpretation remains the law.

In a criminal case, a defense is an established legal theory that is applied to basically explain why a defendant should not be convicted or why they should be convicted on a lesser charge than originally charged.

As for Mr. Haig, he has already been interviewed by the United States Pretrial Services Office and is now under their supervision. His information will have also been transmitted to the United States Probation Officer so that they may prepare the Presentencing reports.

I realize Second Amendment is not a defense, thus why I said should be as in any law that infringes on ones right to keep and bear arms should be Unconstitutional. The court will reverse itself in the coming years and define the Second Amendment as our forefathers intended. It is an individual right like the rest of the Bill of Rights and specifically the first 8 Amendments.

The real purpose of a defense at trial is for at least one jury member to find not guilty (except in Louisiana and Oregon then you need a couple more). Then if you can get them all to agree not guilty even better. I agree this will plead out and go away. These charges were a distraction from the truth of what really happened in Vegas.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[awalker1829]

Another law that is partially unconstitutional is the domestic violence law, as enacted and applied in many states. Specifically, it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against seizure of private property for public purposes without just compensation.

The problem is that states have generally enacted the laws establishing restraining orders or Orders of Protection under Civil or Family Law statutes. Those laws use acts as defined under the Criminal statutes to designate what acts are domestic violence. However, there is no authority under the state or federal constitution that permits the government to simply seize private property that is not forfeit under the criminal statutes. Therefore, if a judge orders a defendant to surrender his firearms to law enforcement (the State), that act can subject the State to liability for civil claims.

Ironically, California is the first state to have addressed this issue. Under the law as it is now, if a judge determines that a defendant should not have access to firearms, they can order the defendant to dispose of their firearms, but they cannot require them to be surrendered to law enforcement. Instead, they now tell the defendant that they have options-they can turn the firearms over to law enforcement or they can turn them over to a dealer FFL. The dealer FFL may either store the firearms on behalf of the defendant for the duration of the restraining order’s effective period or the FFL may purchase or sell the firearms on the behalf of the defendant. The latter provision permits the defendant to realize the monetary value of their property, relieving the state of the liability of a claim under eminent domain.

[Longcolt44]

There is a federal law that protects manufacturers and gun shops from being sued because of what they sold or manufactured that is or was used in an unlawful manner. A good lawyer should be able to wrap this guy in that protection and get him off with a misdemeanor of plain unlawful sales and not a federal offence.

[awalker1829]

Unfortunately for Mr. Haig, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act only applies to properly licensed manufacturers, per the language of the statute. The entire case stems from the fact that he did not have the appropriate federal license to manufacture ammunition for sale. A good attorney would know off the bat that PLCAA doesn’t apply to this case.

At any rate, any deal he might cut will be a federal offense and will probably include prison time. Best he can probably hope for is a reduction in sentence and a six figure fine.