Case

They argued that he could not be convicted because when he commited the first act of domestic violence, there was still no law that convicted you for comiting a crime of domestic violence. “) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State or Tribal law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim”- http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-608.

Decision

“In their 2007decision on United States v. Hayes, the Fourth Circuit agreed with Hayes’ argument, and ruled that the domestic relationship must indeed be a specific element of the prior offense in order to trigger the federal gun ban -- effectively rendering the gun ban moot in the states that do not have misdemeanor laws specific to domestic violence.” - http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/decision-usvhayes.html.
The decision of the supreme court was to make sure that the amendment made to the gun control act is enforced and “to prevent known perpetrators of domestic violence from possessing firearms and to help keep victims safe.” - http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/decision-usvhayes.html, therefore reversing the Fourth circuit decision.

Issue

The Issue was that he had been convicted before of domestic violence to his ex wife. In 2005 police answered to a call of domestic violence to Randy Edwards Hayes house. While the police were there, they found a weapon and charged him for breaking “18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a firearm” -http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes. The argument is if that law only applies if the crime has as an element a domestic relationship or if it applies to any crime that involves a domestic relation.

EOC Week 10

I think that the artist should have the right to express himself any way that he wants but there should be limits to what he does. I think that there should be rules to what is considered to be artistic. The creator of the movie created it saying that it was art. I think that it should be considered art only if there are strong artistic elements in it. I there is a lot of good acting it should be considered artistic no matter what type of movie it is. I don’t think that any of that art exists in anymore in porn today.

I do think that they were bias because she was the only and first woman. The male judge would say that she is thinking as a woman and not as a juror. I think that they thought that her views were going to be different just because she was a woman. I think that some things have changed but a lot of that still exists. I think that everyone should be seen just by their qualifications and not by their sex.

EOC Week 9

After seeing the film, I see how illicit activity affects others and not just owners of the product. I see that by buying their products just feeds their hunger for more money and therefore make more stuff to put out on the market. This is exactly what is happening with the drug traffickers in Mexico. They are fighting each other and the government harder to regain the sales ground that they used to have. The demand is high for their product and they want their customers back. Many wars around the world have started because of these type of operations.
I did not see how a thing as buying a fake watch or purse would affect people that didn’t have anything to do with it, but it chains down. When you buy their product, you are giving them the courage to create more “fake” things such as counterfeit medicine. In the film we saw how hundreds of people died because of a counterfeit cough medicine. If someone had not bought the counterfeits, it would have not been spread to so many parts of the world and the company would not still be operational.
I think that even buying a non eatable counterfeit product could harm the buyer. An original product made in a legitimate factory would have many restrictions on the materials that they can use to make their products, but in an illicit factory they would not. They use the cheapest materials possible not caring if it is toxic to the consumer.

EOC Week 8

I was not here last week and did not know about the assignment until today. I researched and found a case which is The United States Vs Hayes. I read what the case is about and I understand what they are charging him of. I will continue to study the case to fully understand what he is charged of and what he is arguing against. I found that there are many pages that give information about the case and the decisions. The page where I found the case is http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-608
I have also read information about the case on http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=United_States_v._Hayes . For next week I will have all the information researched about the case and the decisions. I will also research what the main allegations made by him and by the united state were.

The United States VS Hayes

I will be doing “The United States VS Hayes.
In West Virginia, officers responded to a call of domestic violence and when they arrived at the location they found fire arms on Randy Hayes. He had already been convicted before of domestic violence and was not allowed to posses any because of the 1996 extension of the federal gun control act of 1968 that says that a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor is not allowed to own any fire arms or ammunition. He was convicted under §§922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2) of possessing fire arms after been convicted of domestic violence. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-608 )

Hayes argued against the indictment saying that the his first charge of domestic violence did not have a domestic relationship between offender and victim as an element and therefore could not be prosecuted under the gun control act. (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-608)