ClueBot NG Report Interface

// Report

Navigation

ID:152963
User:76.100.112.178
Article:Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
Diff:
(Exemptions: oops)
(Court history)
(Tag: references removed)
Line 21: Line 21:
   
 
==Court history==
 
==Court history==
This law has been tested in federal court with the case ''United States v. Emerson'' (No. 99-10331) (5th Cir. 2001).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html|title=FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> See also U.S. v. Emerson, 231 Fed. Appx. 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (Same defendant seeking review of judgment). The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. ''Emerson'' does not address the portion of the Lautenberg Amendment involving conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. It was initially overturned in 1999 for being unconstitutional, but that case was reversed upon appeal in 2001.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0|title=FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref>
+
This law has been tested in federal court with the case ''United States v. Emerson'' (No. 99-10331) (5th Cir. 2001).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html|title=FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref> See also U.S. v. Emerson, 231 Fed. Appx. 349 (5th Cir. 2007) (Same defendant seeking review of judgment). The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii), a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce by persons subject to a court order that, by its explicit terms, prohibits the use of physical force against an intimate partner or child. ''Emerson'' does not address the portion of the Lautenberg Amendment involving conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence. It was initially overturned in 1999 for being unconstitutional, but that case was reversed upon appeal in 2001.{{cn}}
   
 
The case ''Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana'', 185 F.3d 693 (7th 1999) also challenged this law, and the case was rejected.{{Citation needed|date = July 2009}}
 
The case ''Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana'', 185 F.3d 693 (7th 1999) also challenged this law, and the case was rejected.{{Citation needed|date = July 2009}}
Reason:ANN scored at 1
Your username:
Reverted:Yes
Comment
(optional):

Note: Comments are completely optional. You do not have to justify your edit.
If this is a false positive, then you're right, and the bot is wrong - you don't need to explain why.