Supreme Court Decision - Guns & Domestic Violence

[AlHunt]

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 problem is the expanded definition of "domestic violence". The example Clarence Thomas used was the case of a father driving with his kid in the car, texting and driving who gets into an accident that injures his kid. Evidently, that qualifies as some kind of domestic violence and the father can be so convicted, losing his 2A rights.

As so often happens, something worthwhile was expanded to include things it was never meant to.

 

[Lee's Landing Billy]

Know of a case personally where a man was convicted of Domestic Violence. He said from day 1 he was not guilty and would never do such a thing and had no history of it ever. His wife told several people months later that when he failed to come home on night she took his work boots and beat herself up on legs and upper body to leave sole prints. He was arrested and convicted and ruined because of a mad wife. They never lived together another day after his arrest. BUT the damage was done.

 

[P-229]

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.

While your state might not recognize retroactive domestic violence gun possession prohibition, federal law does. Hence, ATF can arrest in your state for violation of 18 USC 922(g)(9):

GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)

The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

This bill passed with almost unanimous support and represents Congress's recognition that "anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms." Congressional Record, p. S11878, September 30, 1996. This new provision affects law enforcement in three interrelated ways. First, it will assist in preventing those individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for domestic violence from obtaining a firearm. Second, it will assist law enforcement by providing a tool for the removal of firearms from certain explosive domestic situations thus decreasing the possibility of deadly violence. Finally, it will serve as a federal prosecution tool in certain situations where alternatives have failed.

Qualifying Offenses: As enacted the statute defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) as any state or federal misdemeanor that -

"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."

This definition includes all misdemeanors that involve the use or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery), if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. This is true whether or not the statute specifically defines the offense as a domestic violence misdemeanor. For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against his or her spouse would be prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. It is anticipated that this issue will be subject to litigation. In the event of such litigation, the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section should be notified so that assistance can be provided.

Retroactive punishment is prohibited by the Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution.

 

[hexnut]

Know of a case personally where a man was convicted of Domestic Violence. He said from day 1 he was not guilty and would never do such a thing and had no history of it ever. His wife told several people months later that when he failed to come home on night she took his work boots and beat herself up on legs and upper body to leave sole prints. He was arrested and convicted and ruined because of a mad wife. They never lived together another day after his arrest. BUT the damage was done.

I had a family member who when mad at her husband, would put oranges in a bag and hit her self with them and then have him arrested for abusing her. I would say this happens more than people want to believe. I have a problem with it.

 

[P-229]

I had a family member who when mad at her husband, would put oranges in a bag and hit her self with them and then have him arrested for abusing her. I would say this happens more than people want to believe. I have a problem with it.

Justice has been removed as the objective of our corrupted court system. Political expediency has replaced it.

Our "justice system" is no better than systems of Third World nations.

Equality under the law has long ago disappeared. If you have money and influence (Bill and Hillary Clinton), you're immune from prosecution, and if prosecution does occur, you'll walk.

A friend who's one of the tiny few lawyers that I trust has told me to avoid having anything decided by any court, for justice is not the objective. Another lawyer friend has told me flat out told me that justice is not always the objective of courts. Where political expediency conflicts with justice, the former will prevail.

We need a constitutional amendment that legalizes jury nullification. Our ruling elite will fight that with every resource it has because it will remove power from dirt bags and morons and return it to We, the People.

There was reason why Thomas Jefferson did not trust judges.

Cops need to start arresting judges and prosecutors who violate rights of Americans. We oughta start with Marilyn Mosby. She's a dirt bag who's more dirty than Mike Nifong. I hope to God cops cuff her and book her.

 

[Telecaster]

They should ban those convicted of domestic violence from owning hammers, baseball bats, pots, pans, and kitchen cutlery, if they're truly worried about them hurting people.

 

[AZretired]

While your state might not recognize retroactive domestic violence gun possession prohibition, federal law does. Hence, ATF can arrest in your state for violation of 18 USC 922(g)(9):

GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)

The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

This bill passed with almost unanimous support and represents Congress's recognition that "anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms." Congressional Record, p. S11878, September 30, 1996. This new provision affects law enforcement in three interrelated ways. First, it will assist in preventing those individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for domestic violence from obtaining a firearm. Second, it will assist law enforcement by providing a tool for the removal of firearms from certain explosive domestic situations thus decreasing the possibility of deadly violence. Finally, it will serve as a federal prosecution tool in certain situations where alternatives have failed.

Qualifying Offenses: As enacted the statute defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) as any state or federal misdemeanor that -

"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."

This definition includes all misdemeanors that involve the use or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery), if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. This is true whether or not the statute specifically defines the offense as a domestic violence misdemeanor. For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against his or her spouse would be prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. It is anticipated that this issue will be subject to litigation. In the event of such litigation, the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section should be notified so that assistance can be provided.

Retroactive punishment is prohibited by the Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4 of the United States Constitution.

You just proved what I said in the last line. You can't make someone retroactively guilty of a crime.
When a Criminal History is run and an old conviction (prior to DV laws) for a Misdemeanor Battery shows up, the CH does not say if its DV of not. The only way to find out is to pull the actual report and read the narrative. I don't see the the Feds or even local PDs taking the time to do this.

As far a checking the box yes or no on the 4473, prior to specific DV laws, a wife beater may have been convicted of Simple Battery and not DV Battery, so technically he is not lying when he checks NO. Again, is the ATF going to check each 4473. They do not have the manpower.

 

[Muss Muggins]

You just proved what I said in the last line. You can't make someone retroactively guilty of a crime.
When a Criminal History is run and an old conviction (prior to DV laws) for a Misdemeanor Battery shows up, the CH does not say if its DV of not. The only way to find out is to pull the actual report and read the narrative. I don't see the the Feds or even local PDs taking the time to do this.

A: Oh, yes you can. If, today, a misdemeanor assault of a police officer becomes a qualifying crime, and you have a prior conviction for that, tomorrow, you won't be able to possess a firearm.

B: With regard to your latter point, which I bolded: That's because you can only use the charging document and judgment. You can't use the report or the facts . . .

 

[P-229]

Thanks, Muss, for getting AZretired dialed in to the reality of our plutocracy. What he missed is that the Constitution expressly forbids ex post facto law, yet politicians disregard what was once the law of our land for law controlled by their hand.

Domestic violence gun possession is applied retroactively. A man or woman who was convicted or took a plea before the law denying gun rights to those who fall under domestic violence prohibition cannot own or possess any firearm anywhere within the USA.

It is back door gun control. The intent is to shrink the population of gun owners so that assured gun confiscation will be a lot easier.

Tell me why a guy who was convicted of felony income tax evasion, and we now know that the IRS targeted specific Americans for tax evasion prosecution, should be denied ability to own a gun. The government has the burden of proving that a nonviolent felon is dangerous were he to possess a firearm.

The population of Americans legally entitled to Second Amendment RIGHTS is shrinking. And it's shrinking by design.

Bill Clinton wanted to classify DUI as a crime of violence. Had he been successful, his next step would have been denying those convicted of DUI 30 years ago while in college their Second Amendment RIGHT.

One more very important point: in CA, all that's necessary to trigger domestic violence is injury however slight. Hence, an inadvertent scratch would be sufficient for government to seize a hapless guy's guns. And guns are seized when cops respond to domestic violence calls, not upon conviction.

The land of the free is a very cruel hoax. We are not a free people.

We have to stop compromising. Are you listening, NRA??? If a right is a right, there is no need for compromise.

 

[Muss Muggins]

. . . Bill Clinton wanted to classify DUI as a crime of violence. Had he been successful, his next step would have been denying those convicted of DUI 30 years ago while in college their Second Amendment RIGHT. . . .

Well, here, we're going to differ. First, a felony DUI takes three convictions in Missouri, and I suspect it's similar in others. To start the debate, why, in your opinion, is DUI illegal?

 

[AZretired]

A: Oh, yes you can. If, today, a misdemeanor assault of a police officer becomes a qualifying crime, and you have a prior conviction for that, tomorrow, you won't be able to possess a firearm.

B: With regard to your latter point, which I bolded: That's because you can only use the charging document and judgment. You can't use the report or the facts . . .

Muss & P229; I stand by what I said; making a law retro-active is unconstitutional and what happens in one state may not happen in another. For example if you had a fist fight with your brother in 1989 and were charged with a Misdemeanor Battery and were found guilty, you Criminal History will read that you were convicted of a Simple Battery. There will be no mention of DV. New Mexico, where worked would have no idea in 2001 that the listed conviction was DV. And it's not your job to tell anyone.

As you said, since you can't use the report or the facts, Just the Charging Document and the Judgement... Where is the DV conviction? States, especially now, do not really like enforcing Federal Law. In fact Obama has told them they cannot (i.e. Arizona arresting ilegals).

 

[Ranger17]

I'm on the fence on this whole debate. Grew up in a very violent household; with one stepdad who frequently physically abused my mother (including using pistols) so I have in my mind a zero tolerance for anyone who touches their partner. Somebody who does that has 0 rights in my book. Now i can accept there can be varying degrees of what's considered physical and would acknowledge that should be part of any discussion. And what i saw as a child was more of the extreme situation where there was no chance the man would have been found innocent in court (if it ever went that far but that's another story......)

I'd add up until a few years ago when i became a gun owner and entered this hobby, I could have cared less if someone lost their access to guns. Apologies that was just my mind-frame up to that point. My feelings over ownership and rights have changed a bit since then.
In fact when i took my permit class, there was someone there who the instructor pointed out and congratulated for putting in the time and effort to clear up some "issue" he had preventing him from owning a gun to get to the point of being able to carry.
Now thinking on this, I can see there being an option for someone to work their way thru whatever 'steps' may be set up to earn their gun ownership back. But if the domestic abuse was violent, all rights are lost.


I'm sure many may not agree with me and that's fine, after all it's just one man's .02

 

[johngalt]

Once you decide that it is permissible to deny one class of people their rights, you are on the slippery slope where the bar can be lowered until everyone's rights are denied.

Look at how the bar has been continually lowered, since 1938. Now they want to use the no fly list to deny people their rights, entirely at a unelected bureaucrat's discretion, using whatever secret criteria they decide, without any due process.

 

[P-229]

AZretired,

I'll try this again. Call ATF and see what an agent tells you.

Then call your congressman and ask his staff why ex post facto laws exist in contradiction of the United States Constitution. Unless he admits ex post facto laws are illegal, anything he tells you in support of export facto law is bull sugar.

 

[P-229]

Once you decide that it is permissible to deny one class of people their rights, you are on the slippery slope where the bar can be lowered until everyone's rights are denied.

Look at how the bar has been continually lowered, since 1938. Now they want to use the no fly list to deny people their rights, entirely at a unelected bureaucrat's discretion, using whatever secret criteria they decide, without any due process.

Land of the free is a very cruel hoax

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

FWIW, I am against almost all restrictions on firearms ownership and peaceful bearing of arms. I see no reason why a convicted felon should not be permitted to bear arms like anyone else, if he can be trusted to be let out of prison. If a felon is released, what good is the law, anyway? Does it stop him from anything? Since, IMO, it works only after the fact, the laws against robbery, assault and murder should suffice without any weapons laws at all. Granted, many people are released who should not be, but IMO that should be addressed with long sentences for responsible judges and parole boards.

People who can't be trusted around guns need to be incarcerated.

 

[cmj8591]

One thing to keep in mind is that these guys lost their constitutional rights after being afforded DUE PROCESS. That means that they at least had an opportunity to be judged by a jury of their peers. This is not a case of a police chief or local politician, on their own, telling them that they can't have a gun. We do this all of the time. People are given a trial, judged guilty of a crime and lose their constitutional rights. That's what happened to these guys. I'm thinking that's how they intended it to work when they wrote it up.

 

[Muss Muggins]

One thing to keep in mind is that these guys lost their constitutional rights after being afforded DUE PROCESS. That means that they at least had an opportunity to be judged by a jury of their peers. This is not a case of a police chief or local politician, on their own, telling them that they can't have a gun. We do this all of the time. People are given a trial, judged guilty of a crime and lose their constitutional rights. That's what happened to these guys. I'm thinking that's how they intended it to work when they wrote it up.

A small, but significant detail: Both these fella's pleaded guilty, they were not found guilty at trial. Decide for yourselves if and how that might matter. And again, as pointed out before, the Supreme Court has now allowed misdemeanor behavior of a reckless nature to suffice for losing a constitutional right.

 

[cmj8591]

A small, but significant detail: Both these fella's pleaded guilty, they were not found guilty at trial. Decide for yourselves if and how that might matter. And again, as pointed out before, the Supreme Court has now allowed misdemeanor behavior of a reckless nature to suffice for losing a constitutional right.

They may have pleaded guilty but that was their decision to make. They still were afforded their due process. In this case, all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Mr.Harry]

What about a DV conviction where no physical assault or attempted assault ever occurred? As in, a restraining order is granted and then the restrained violates the order by being inside of the 200 ft. protective radius, then is convicted of 'stalking' - a misdemeanor domestic violence charge? Seems a bit over-stretched.