# Man loses Second Amendment rights



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 18, 2021)

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 (Nov 18, 2021)

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


----------



## pknopp (Nov 18, 2021)

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 (Nov 18, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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

We have a mutually understanding.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Nov 18, 2021)

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 (Nov 18, 2021)

occupied said:


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


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


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Good decision?


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


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 18, 2021)

pknopp said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2021)

The system works.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 18, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


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


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


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2021)

pknopp said:


> 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 (Nov 18, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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 . . .



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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
		




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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 (Nov 19, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 19, 2021)

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


----------



## Abatis (Nov 19, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> 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 (Nov 19, 2021)

Rogue AI said:


> 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 (Nov 19, 2021)

Abatis said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




* 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...*_


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 19, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 19, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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 (Nov 19, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Rigby5 (Jan 26, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 17, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 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.


----------

