Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

The 10th Circuit has issued an opinion that convictions of municipal and local ordinances for domestic violence do not remove a person's rights under the Second Amendment. Current federal law makes a person who has been convicted of domestic violence under "Federal, State, or Tribal law" a prohibited possessor who may not legally purchase or possess firearms or ammunition.

SNIP

It is unknown how many people have been convicted of domestic violence under municipal or local ordinances. In some areas, large percentages of domestic violence cases are tried in municipal or local courts. Plea bargains where part of the deal is to plead guilty to a municipal ordinance rather than a state statute, are known to occur. From pressofatlanticcity.com:

About 43 percent of new domestic violence cases are heard in municipal court.

Hey hey.
Immutable. Inalienable. Rights.

or

Feds squashing municipal/local ordinances, taking more power unto themselves.

Interesting because I would say that 80% of our DV cases, particularly first offenses, are pled to some municipal variation of disorderly conduct.

Call me crazy but this could be the case that gets us national reciprocity. The House clearly has the votes but the bills haven't been moving because there's no way the Senate will get to 60 on a stand-alone bill. We've long said that the only to get reciprocity will be attach it to something else. If there's any hint that this ruling could stand expect the Democrats in Congress to want to change the DV statute. What better way for the Republicans to accommodate than to attach it to one of their legislative priorities on the same broad subject?

If I recall this was how the Virginia reciprocity fiasco was fixed a few years ago: Republicans got reciprocity back (and actually expanded it) and Democrats got to bring some of the prohibited person rules in line with federal law (so no real loss) and the whole thing was signed by an anti-gun, Democratic governor.