West Virginia Gun Case Goes to U.S. Supreme Court

Select City

Charleston Huntington Ashland Ironton Clay Logan Ripley Spencer Sutton Wayne Williamson Paintsville Pikeville Gallipolis Pomeroy Portsmouth

City:

News Features
	John Marra John Marra is WSAZ's gardening expert.
	Recipes See what's cooking in the WSAZ kitchen.
	E-Reporter Submit your pictures or video to WSAZ.
	Charleston's Most Wanted Check out Kanawha Valley's fugitives.
	News Story Dubs Want a copy of a news story? Go here for info.
	Where Are They Now? See what former WSAZers are doing now.

Most Popular News Stories
1.	Name Released In Huntington Shooting
2.	SEVERE WEATHER: Fierce Storms Move Through Region
3.	Missing Teen Reappears After Two Weeks
4.	Mother & Daughter Found Safe
5.	One Hurt in Four Wheeler Accident
6.	Hillary & Daughter At Huntington Church
7.	Tornado Risk
8.	ESPN: O.J. Received $30K
9.	UPDATE: Fire Investigated As Arson
10.	Severe Weather: Route 20 Shut Down

Send us your News and Weather pictures & videos. Click on the pictures to submit

West Virginia Gun Case Goes to U.S. Supreme Court

Save

Posted: 11:21 PM Apr 30, 2008
Last Updated: 11:21 PM Apr 30, 2008
Reporter: D'Arcy Robb
Email Address: darcy.robb@wsaz.com

29 comments

A | A | A

Charleston, W.Va. (WSAZ) - A West Virginia case involving gun rights is on its way to the United States Supreme Court.

In 1994: Randy Hayes of Marion County pleaded guilty under state law to a misdemeanor battery offense against his ex-wife. In 1996: it became a federal law that you can't own a gun if you're convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

Then in 2004: police say they found a Winchester rifle at Hayes' home.

The government argues that because of his guilty plea to misdemeanor battery Hayes is not allowed to own a gun. But Hayes and his lawyer disagree. They say it's not fair to apply a law that was passed in 1996 to an offense that happened in 1994. They also say Hayes plead guilty to a state misdemeanor battery charge, which is different from a federal domestic violence misdemeanor.

The case is expected to go before the Court sometime this fall. Whatever the Court decides could influence gun laws and whether the government is allowed to enforce new laws on past cases all over the country.

del.icio.us

Google

Yahoo

digg

More Stories
Tree Crushes Car and Damages Home

Theft Suspect Sentenced

Mom Gets Baby for Mother's Day

ESPN: O.J. Received $30K

Name Released In Huntington Shooting

Hillary & Daughter At Huntington Church

Severe Weather: Route 20 Shut Down

SEVERE WEATHER: Fierce Storms Move Through Region

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: Gun Owner on May 3, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Thank you Jeremy for pointing out to Melinda what I was about to. This guy was out of line w/ the battery offense on his wife. I agree w/ that. I will not defend him on that issue. I don't know this guy, his wife, or anything about the case in '94. However, if he served his time, then why are we punishing him by taking away his hunting rifle? It wasn't like they found a concealed weapon w/out a CWP. It was his hunting rifle. Heck, I have 4 rifles, a shotgun, a muzzleloader, and 2 pistols. Now if I was to have a battery against my wife in todays time, then yes by all means, take my guns away. And to Anon on May 2nd at 12:10, I wasn't saying it is OK for criminals to get guns. My argument was actually against it. If they were to actually ENFORCE the laws we have now, instead of letting people out early, unreformed, then we wouldn't have some of the problems we have.

Posted by: FRANKLIN on May 2, 2008 at 08:36 PM
FIRST OFF IF THE LAW WAS IN AFFECT BEFORE THIS HAPPENED,WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? I KNOW MOST "WOMEN" WILL DISAGREE WITH THAT COMMENT,LETS SAY FOR EXAMPLE IF THE GOVERNOR OF OUR FINE STATE,KNEW HIS DAUGHTER HAD OBTAINED AN ILLEGAL MASTERS DREGEE,DOES THAT MAKE IT OK BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE?

Posted by: Jeremy on May 2, 2008 at 06:18 PM
To Melinda, you need to read the state code again. A permit is not required to purchase or own a firearm. A concealed weapon permit in this state is $90 and good for 5 years or until revoked. This state has full preemption except for Charleston and Dunbar. Actually you are allowed by law to open carry anywhere on public land and on any private land where it is permitted. If however you on private land and asked not to carry you must leave or leave the weapon. A CWP is only required if you want to carry a pistol or revolver concealed. State code $61-7-1 through $61-7-15, defines this.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 2, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Wife beaters shouldn't have fists, Wife shooters shouldn't have guns.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 2, 2008 at 01:09 PM
dear anonymous it is our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms it is not going to make a bit of differance if we carry guns in our cars because the stupid thugs can go to any charleston housing project and get a gun on any day of the weak

Posted by: Anonymous on May 2, 2008 at 12:10 PM
If the law passed in 1996, and his offense was in '94, he is correct, there are laws on the books that say you can't go back like that. There's a term for it I think it's ex post facto. However I find it interesting that so many were offended about Obama's comment about people voting based on gun issues. It is a fact. I don't like Obama because of his immigration and health care views, but what he said was true. I myself am not opposed to gun ownership at all, I just don't think they should be so easy for nuts to get. And arguing criminals will get them anyway, is like saying speeding should be legal because bad drivers will do it, or bombs those who want them will get them anyway, same with drugs. I think law biding citizens should be allowed to have guns if they want, after a background check.

Posted by: melinda on May 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I DON'T CARE HOW LONG HE HAS CONTROLLED HIS ANGER,IN WEST VIRGINIA A PERMIT IS REQUIRED BY LAW AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT EVERY MONTH AND IT HAS TO BE SIGNED BY THE SHERIFF FOR YOUR INFORMATION... BUT IF YOU BUY IT OFF OF A THUG YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT. ANYTIME YOU HAVE A CONVICTION ON YOU FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THE LAWS SHOULD STICK, NO GUNS! YOU CHOSE TO BE AN IDIOT AND BEAT UP A WOMAN YOU CHOSE TO LOSE YOUR RIGHTS. TO THE PERSON WHO HAD THE GUTS TO TELL ME A VICTIM WAIT TIL SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY GOES THROUGH THIS AND THEN YOUR OPINIONS WILL BE DIFFERENT. IF HE WAS STABLE HE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MISDEMEANOR ON HIM duh? IF YOU CAN BEAT UP ON SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE YOUR A SICK IDIOT I DON'T CARE HOW LONG IT WAS YOU DON'T NEED A GUN! YOU NEED AN ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASS. GUNS ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED PROTECTION. HE PLEADED GUILTY SO HE SHOULD NOT GET A GUN WHAT DOES HE NEED ONE FOR ANYWAYS HIS FIST WAS A WEAPON TO SOMEONE IS THAT NOT BAD ENOUGH? WWJD?

Posted by: booger on May 2, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Wife-beaters shouldn't have guns. Giving a known violent person a gun is like giving an alcoholic liquor.

Posted by: Just looking on May 2, 2008 at 09:11 AM
He might have opted for a trial and been found not guilty if he had known that years down the road he would be barred from owning a firearm. A lot of people plead guilty to a crime rather than fight it so they can get past the incident and move on. I have no problem with the law itself, just the retroactive nature in which it is applied.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 1, 2008 at 11:14 PM
The guy will probably win this one. I think that all law biding citizens should have the right to own guns but I don't think they should be able to carry them in the cars. Only law enforcement should be able to carry guns. The reason is, if you have a gun in the car while you're shopping and someone happens to break into your car now the crook is armed and dangerous. No you did nothing wrong with having the gun in the car but if it had not been there in the first place then the robber would not have had his hands on it. As far as this case goes, noone knows the extent of the domestic violence. Did the violence include a gun? That should have something in determining the case. If not, and considering the incident took place prior to the law then he should have the right to keep is hunting rifle. If it did involve a weapon then he should have to give it up.

Posted by: Jon on May 1, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I agree with the majority let this guy have a gun and anybody else that is stable enough to own one. Like the rest here have said if a criminal wants a gun the they will get one. I alwas thought this was America and not Russia. We have the right to keep and bear arms and I think all American should stand up for their rights and not allow the government to change our right when ever they want. I am not a member of the nra but they do have a point, if we don't stop the government from taking our guns, as well as any other right we have then they will go on taking until there is nothing left to take. Bill I agree 100% from my cold dead hands.

Posted by: Control on May 1, 2008 at 04:27 PM
melinda, a permit is not required. "Can't control his anger?" They guy was convicted years ago and apparently has controlled it for 14 years.

Posted by: Jeremy on May 1, 2008 at 03:39 PM
I agree with gun owner, it is our individual right as Americans to "keep and bear arms". As far as criminals go this is why we have things like the N.I.C.S. to do background checks on people purchasing guns. There are also laws regarding the purchase of a firearm and re-selling it to someone who is not allowed to own a firearm making it a crime. Now as far as domestic situations go, which I was a child of, I believe that we need to protect our private information if we so chose to purchase things like a concealed weapons permit, which is not required to purchase any weapon(handgun,rifle,shotgun). Right now anyone who has a concealed weapons permit in the state of WV their information is considered free and open to the public of who you are and where in some cases. I am against criminals owning firearms but also a preserver of the second amendment, and a member of the NRA.

Posted by: gun owner on May 1, 2008 at 02:40 PM
i saw that everybody deserves a 2nd chance if they have not been convicted of anything within the past 10years they should be able to own guns again

Posted by: melinda on May 1, 2008 at 01:18 PM
speaking from someone who was abused and my X has guns and has threatened to use them on me. I can speak on this situation I don't care what year this had happened to him he shouldn't own a gun if you cannot control your anger than you don't need a gun. For older people and women who need protection yes I recommend a gun. But wether their are laws or not criminals can get guns no matter what. I was told someone would sell me one, but I would be it the legal way and get a permit for it. Your criminals think their cool with guns and they can get it anywhere.

Posted by: Russ on May 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Although the Lautenberg Law under which this falls has been upheld by the Supreme Court where misdemeanor charges were the case. Seemingly the only way to get this 'RIGHT' re-instated is for the misdemeanor to be expunged.

Posted by: Russ on May 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM
ex-post facto is illegal according to the US Constitution

Posted by: Justice on May 1, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I think that we should protect our gun laws, however I think that the right to own a gun should be the same as the right to operate a vehicle...law abiding citizens only! I don't want criminals having guns, but here we go again....even if the law would go against him...criminals will still have guns, they don't care. As for this man and a crime in his past....It would seem that he does perhaps have a violent nature and if he could not control his temper at that time then we must ask....first would you want this man and others like him to be given permission by the law to own a firearm, to date and marry your daughters?? I say lets keep our guns LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, but if we have those that show violence toward others unecessarily then that is totally a differnt issue and has nothing to do with gun rights!

Posted by: CDF on May 1, 2008 at 09:20 AM
The bottom line is.....he has still been convicted of the crime. Regardless of the date the law passed, he is still has the conviction.

Posted by: Bill on May 1, 2008 at 08:28 AM
From my cold dead hand!

Posted by: Joe on May 1, 2008 at 07:43 AM
Doesn't sound like they have a case against this guy. Its a shame he has to go through the court system to prove it..

Posted by: Gun owner on May 1, 2008 at 07:27 AM
While I don't condone abuse of any kind, I do think he has a valid case. A sort of 'Grandfathering'. As an avid hunter, I'm obviously biased, however, if we put guns in everyones' hands, CRIME WILL GO DOWN. Criminals make owning a gun seem like a crime. Honest Americans cannot own or carry a gun w/out attracting suspicion. That needs to change. There are, however, certain people that should not be allowed weapons. These people will probably have them anyway, but lets ENFORCE the laws. Gun control and gun rights are 2 different things. With a blend of both, we'll find a common middle ground, that can start keeping our streets safer.

Posted by: C on May 1, 2008 at 06:54 AM
We have lots of conflicting gun laws. But just wait, if Obamma gets to be prez, you won't be able to own a BB gun.

Posted by: Billy Hill on May 1, 2008 at 06:53 AM
I'll probably start something but here goes. I'm usually supportive of gun rights cause that's part of our heritage and it's just the billyhill way, but I'm going to have to support the original law on these types of cases. I just think if you commit any type of domestic violence offense or battery, in which you've obviously caused injury, why should you be given allowed to have guns to escalate the future offenses.

Posted by: Jim on May 1, 2008 at 06:53 AM
We all make mistakes. Should they follow us to the grave, I don't think so. This law would not allow this man to hunt nor protect his home and family. Why not take away his axe, shovel, etc. The offense had nothing to do with guns. Another shot at our gun rights. I can not believe the ignorance of our law makers and us the people who put them there.

Posted by: kevin on May 1, 2008 at 03:20 AM
lets protect our gun rights america

Posted by: al on May 1, 2008 at 02:22 AM
i don't think this should apply to him, battery and domestic violence is two totaly different charges under state status and battery doesn't even come under federal law, plus if i recall the law that this is going on was not back dated to include all past offenses, so this is just one way the goverenment has tried to take guns away from people. I support mr hayes 100 percent, granted he shouldn't have hit his wife in the first place but non the less he was not found guilty of domestic violence

Posted by: Bobo on May 1, 2008 at 12:45 AM
I think he'll win. Retroactive laws don't jive.

Regardless of the nominee, will you vote for a Democrat for president this November?

	Yes
	No


Submitted by Layla from West Virginia.