Supreme Court Decision - Guns & Domestic Violence

[JohnSW]

June 27, 2016

"In a major victory for domestic violence advocacy groups, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

In a 6-2 decision, the high court ruled that reckless domestic assaults can be considered misdemeanor crimes to restrict gun ownership.

The justices rejected arguments that the law covers only intentional acts of abuse and not those committed in the heat of an argument.

Defendants Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong were each found guilty of misdemeanor domestic assaults in Maine. A federal law prohibits anyone with that type of conviction from possessing a gun."

Supreme Court upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence | Fox News

 

[Targets Guy]

I wonder if you get a pardon. Like murderers do.

 

[mocha001]

California already has that law

 

[Rpg]

These guys are thugs.

The issue was whether conviction of a law that included " reckless" and "intentional" in the same statute qualified as a crime of domestic violence.

Of course it does!!!

 

[Inusuit]

Misdemeanor conviction trumps a Constitutional Right?

 

[P-229]

What is scary about this law is that it's applied retroactively. Assume a guy or woman pled guilty to misdemeanor as a plea deal to avoid jail time even though domestic violence did not occur. Then years later, he or she is prevented from possessing firearms due to that plea deal to put it behind him or her not knowing of its future consequences. What's next? DUI? I know that Bill Clinton wanted DUI classified as a crime of violence.

 

[P-229]

I consider this law and others as back door gun confiscation.

 

[AZretired]

What is scary about this law is that it's applied retroactively. Assume a guy or woman pled guilty to misdemeanor as a plea deal to avoid jail time even though domestic violence did not occur. Then years later, he or she is prevented from possessing firearms due to that plea deal to put it behind him or her not knowing of its future consequences. What's next? DUI? I know that Bill Clinton wanted DUI classified as a crime of violence.

Not necessarily true. In the state I worked, first it was not retro-active and second they created specific Domestic Violence Statutes that you must be charged under. Last if the arresting agency fails to report the crime properly in UCR it can fall through the cracks.

 

[steelslaver]

I have some misgivings about the domestic abuse exclusion.

Although I do believe that someone who commits domestic abuse isn't showing the kind of emotional control necessary to own guns, I also see some problems. In the case of a domestic call there is often a prejudice against the male involved. I think many young men have problems with control in romantic relationships that they learn to control. What is domestic abuse in one jurisdiction isn't in another. Maybe this clause should have some way of being cancelled over time.

Mostly I worry that if you can lose your right over a misdemeanor, what is to stop the government from adding additional ones to the list, DUI does not show good judgement, nor reckless driving, or for that matter neither does disturbing the peace, or even speeding.

I was not known as a pillar of good judgement in my distant youth.

 

[arjay]

I consider this law and others as back door gun confiscation.

Domestic abusers show an inability to control their behavior when angry.We all (or most of us) worry about those types being armed.They let their emotions rule their behavior

 

[g8rb8]

I have some misgivings about the domestic abuse exclusion.

Although I do believe that someone who commits domestic abuse isn't showing the kind of emotional control necessary to own guns, I also see some problems. In the case of a domestic call there is often a prejudice against the male involved. I think many young men have problems with control in romantic relationships that they learn to control. What is domestic abuse in one jurisdiction isn't in another. Maybe this clause should have some way of being cancelled over time.

Mostly I worry that if you can lose your right over a misdemeanor, what is to stop the government from adding additional ones to the list, DUI does not show good judgement, nor reckless driving, or for that matter neither does disturbing the peace, or even speeding.

I was not known as a pillar of good judgement in my distant youth.

steelslaver,
Maybe not a pillar of good judgement in your distant youth, but certainly a pillar of reasonable debate in your current state of youth.

Domestic abusers show an inability to control their behavior when angry. We all (or most of us) worry about those types being armed. They let their emotions rule their behavior

The erudite observations by Steelslaver and Arjay show both sides of the debate. Let's hope the decision by the Supreme Court does what it's intended to do and not what it is not intended to do.

 

[pharmer]

Mostly I worry that if you can lose your right over a misdemeanor, what is to stop the government from adding additional ones to the list, DUI does not show good judgement, nor reckless driving, or for that matter neither does disturbing the peace, or even speeding.

Or being a "climate change denier." Joe

 

[the ringo kid]

Domestic abusers show an inability to control their behavior when angry.We all (or most of us) worry about those types being armed.They let their emotions rule their behavior

When I was in ;law enforcement, one of our guys had been a wife-beater-which in Texas--means if you cant own or carry a gun in this line of work? your out of a job. He was fired. Thisa was back in 96.

 

[rlongclu]

I have some misgivings about the domestic abuse exclusion.

Although I do believe that someone who commits domestic abuse isn't showing the kind of emotional control necessary to own guns, I also see some problems. In the case of a domestic call there is often a prejudice against the male involved. I think many young men have problems with control in romantic relationships that they learn to control. What is domestic abuse in one jurisdiction isn't in another. Maybe this clause should have some way of being cancelled over time.

Mostly I worry that if you can lose your right over a misdemeanor, what is to stop the government from adding additional ones to the list, DUI does not show good judgement, nor reckless driving, or for that matter neither does disturbing the peace, or even speeding.

I was not known as a pillar of good judgement in my distant youth.

First, let's label it correctly. It is Domestic Violence, not domestic abuse. Domestic Violence is an assault on another person. if you have ever been close to a situation like that you would call it what it is. Young men (or women) who have anger issues that play out in a romantic relationship deserve no sympathy, nor do they deserve the right to own firearms, in my humble opinion, if they have been convicted.

 

[Erich]

In case anyone would like to read the opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf

 

[Muss Muggins]

First, let's label it correctly. It is Domestic Violence, not domestic abuse. Domestic Violence is an assault on another person. if you have ever been close to a situation like that you would call it what it is. Young men (or women) who have anger issues that play out in a romantic relationship deserve no sympathy, nor do they deserve the right to own firearms, in my humble opinion, if they have been convicted.

I think we all have to ask ourselves why a misdemeanor conviction for recklessly assaulting someone you are in a domestic relationship with forever forfeits your constitutional right to a firearm, while an intentional assault of a law enforcement officer does not . . . ?

I believe that neither should trigger a ban, but it my view, the intentional assault of an officer is much, much worse than blacking your husband's eye during an argument over burned pizza (saw that one in person). They either both count, or neither does, because the act is the same.

 

[Rpg]

In case anyone would like to read the opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf

Folks need to read the opinion.

These thugs were looking for a technicality to get them off.

A domestic violence conviction has been a disqualifier for firearms ownership or possession for decades: misdemeanor or felony.

There is nothing new here.

Just the Court saying 'you don't get off on a technicality, whether your conduct was reckless or intentional, you can't have a gun. '

Who can disagree?

If you understand the legal definition of "reckless" conduct its hard to think these folks should have guns.

If you know what these guys did, it's hard to disagree with the Court.

 

[Kevin J.]

A simple and constitution fix is to create an aggravated domestic violence statute that is at the felony level. This would allow courts to charge the violent thug appropriately, and not have the poor sap who happens, in a heated argument, grab his spouse arm to strongly. The aggravated assault would justify the lose of a constitutional right while the other not so.

 

[Old TexMex]

Be prepared for the interpretation of "abuse" and "violence" to be broadened by anti gun courts. If the definition of "bullying" can be so broad ranged as it has become, even an arguement over what color to paint the house could disqualify, should the offended spouse file.

 

[Erich]

This blog posting by a non-gunny lawyer was interesting to me:

Page not found | Simple Justice

Nobody is going to cry for Stephen Voisine, right? But as Jonathan Adler notes at Volokh Conspiracy, there was one really weird thing that prevents us from shrugging at the holding and walking away. There was a two-person dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined, in parts I and II, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. When judges from opposite ends of the judicial spectrum join hands, you have to take notice.

Even assuming any doubt remains over the reading of "use of physical force," the majority errs by reading the statute in a way that creates serious constitutional problems. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance "command[ s ] courts, when faced with two plausible constructions of a statute—one constitutional and the other unconstitutional—to choose the constitutional reading." Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 213 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 922(g)(9) is already very broad. It imposes a lifetime ban on gun ownership for a single intentional nonconsensual touching of a family member. A mother who slaps her 18-year-old son for talking back to her—an intentional use of force—could lose her right to bear arms forever if she is cited by the police under a local ordinance. The majority seeks to expand that already broad rule to any reckless physical injury or nonconsensual touch. I would not extend the statute into that constitutionally problematic territory.

There are two issues raised by the dissent which explain the ironic duo. First, that the majority ignored a basic tenet of statutory construction, reflecting a rather cavalier lack of respect for a constitutional right. Second, the sweep of its holding covers conduct that no one, except a person who really hates guns no matter what the circumstances, would believe was intended by Congress or should be constitutionally included as a trigger for the loss of a constitutional right.