Supreme Court reviews gun laws in context of domestic violence.

[monotonous_iterancy]

Misdemeanor domestic violence convictions usually disqualify one in most places from owning a gun. The Supreme Court is reviewing these laws.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/15/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence/4495911/

I'm not sure what to think of this. One one hand, the person convicted of it has had their day in court, and has previously demonstrated violent tendencies. On the other, it is a misdemeanor.

Making sure domestic abusers are allowed to have a gun isn't high up on my list to say the least.

 

[rockhopper46038]

If I read the petition right, the point of the review is to see if "non-violent" domestic abuse should disqualify. I'm not sure I know what that is, but with all the terms like "emotional abuse" and "psychological abuse" that gets bandied about in some of the more vicious divorce proceedings, I'm guessing that in some states domestic abuse can be defined pretty loosely.

 

[MErl]

more on it here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-report-balancing-over-and-under-inclusiveness/

Takeaway seems to be "What was the intent of the law and how to make sure it only applies to the intented target."

Doesn't look good for castleman but perhaps some refinement of just what can qualify as DV will come of the case.

 

[Midwest]

The "Lautenberg Amendment" should be ruled unconstitutional just on the basis of it being retroactive. Thus people who originally were told told plea guilty to a simple misdemeanor at the time, even though they might have been innocent at the time-just to get the process over with....Had no idea at the time that it would later on give them a lifetime ban on firearms.

Thus these simple misdemeanors should be re-heard, tossed out or have the lifetime ban lifted if their misdemeanor plea occurred before the Lautenberg Amendment took effect.

The defendants who plead guilty to a misdemeanor, were doing it under the assumption that their firearms rights would not be in jeopardy. If they knew that a plea of misdemeanor would have lead to a loss of firearm rights. They would have most likely fought it. This is a gross miscarriage of justice IMO. It is creating additional penalties after the fact after the case was settled should be prohibited. The fine or the time served was settled and any more penalties that took place AFTER the case was settled should not be retroactively applied.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Never before in the history of our country have peoples rights been denied for a misdemeanor. If you have ever been involved in a domestic (i.e., your errant daughter or son files a complaint against YOU because they didn't like your discipline, etc), and you faced losing your gun rights, you might have a better understanding of how far this suspension of gun ownership in these cases can go. The laws preceding this misdemeanor change were perfectly good enough to keep the peace. Is there ANOTHER misdemeanor that causes you to lose your gun ownership rights (and thus, the most EFFICIENT way to protect yourself or your family) that I am unaware of? Even misdemeanor ASSAULT doesn't lose you your rights.

 

[torqem]

the great majority of felonies harm nobody else, either, folks. 3/4 of them are caused by dope being illegal. A felony conviction does not bar you from service in the Militia, and indeed, felons who agreed to go fight in Iraq were offered restoration of their rights as bait. Just like illegal immigrants get to be citizens if they agree to go fight. IF they are Mexican, that is. No other illegal immigrant racial group has enough clout politically to get that accomplished. Just like they get to have WellsFargo bank accounts without having an SSN or showing US Id, which neither you nor I can do.

 

[armoredman]

Put the two above comments together, and look at the massive push for mental health restrictions, and think back - did you ever tell someone you were really depressed? Did you ever take psych meds? BTW, some psych meds are used to help stop smoking, (Chantix, Welbutrin), and that means you've been prescribed them. Perhaps you saw the counselor in high school because you were emotionally distraught over losing your girlfriend? Congratulations, you are now a prohibited possessor, for your own good!
Think that's far fetched? So did the guys who got nailed by Lautenberg. Yes, I certainly hope the Lautenberg Amendment dies a quick and unnatural death by SCOTUS, but I'm not holding out a whole lot of hope, based on what questions the justices actually asked.

 

[gc70]

Putting aside knee-jerk reactions to what people think about domestic abusers, sorting out what the federal law means by the term "crime of domestic violence" is pretty important. The government has taken the position that a "crime of domestic violence" does not actually require violence (or more specifically, violent force), which seems somewhat strange and contradictory.

Defining the language of the federal law is important because it interacts with the laws of every state. As an example, a person can be convicted under North Carolina General Statutes § 50B - Domestic Violence for harassment or stalking, without committing, or even threatening, an act involving violence or force. Did Congress intend to strip people of 2A rights over petty misdemeanors for harassment or stalking, or was the intent to deny guns to people who had a history of committing violent acts? That is part of what the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to decide.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think this is rather important. Loosely, so many non-violent activities that are not uncommon in marriages could be considered "domestic violence".

 

[danez71]

Even misdemeanor ASSAULT doesn't lose you your rights.

..........versus getting a DV conviction for something non-violent can get your 2A rights taken away.

That's where the focus will (should) be.

 

[JRH6856]

While the ex post facto nature of Lautenberg is certainly an important issue, it appears that this case hinges on the definition of violence. Since that is the basis for appeal, I'm not sure the justices will (or even can) consider the ex post facto issue. Won't they need a case appealed on that basis?

 

[gc70]

The Supreme Counrt has denied cert for two cases challenging the Lautenberg Amendment as a ex post facto law. Since the current case does not raise that question, you can be pretty certain that the court will not provide an answer.

 

[Kayaker 1960]

A friend of mine was having marital issues, during a heated argument he pushed his wife, no blood, not even a bruise but she called the police. He was charges with a misdemeanor and even though he and his wife worked it out he can't buy a gun. It's not right.

 

[Twiki357]

It’s not just some of the ridiculous domestic violence stuff that should be addressed. It’s any non-violent crime should not make a person lose their 2A rights. That comes down to the “Could have been sentenced” to more than a year in jail. For instance all the extremists in MADD that have blackmailed legislators to increased DUI penalties. And there are also many other non-violent offences that that should be excluded such as financial crimes. That “Could have been sentenced” to more than a year should be actually sentenced. Let a judge and jury decide, not an arbitrary law created by elected idiots.

 

[Glocktogo]

Midwest did hit the nail on the head though. The Lautenberg Amendment was terrible lawmaking and should've been struck down years ago.

 

[Jim Watson]

Did Congress intend to strip people of 2A rights over petty misdemeanors for harassment or stalking, or was the intent to deny guns to people who had a history of committing violent acts?

I think the intent of Congress was to strip people of their right to own a firearm by whatever means possible and for whatever excuse was politically feasible at the time. Incremental gun control.

 

[JRH6856]

I think the intent of Congress was to strip people of their right to own a firearm by whatever means possible and for whatever excuse was politically feasible at the time. Incremental gun control.

Bingo!

Now the question is, does this court be guided by the Constitution or Congressional intent?

 

[savanahsdad]

The "Lautenberg Amendment" should be ruled unconstitutional just on the basis of it being retroactive. Thus people who originally were told told plea guilty to a simple misdemeanor at the time, even though they might have been innocent at the time-just to get the process over with....Had no idea at the time that it would later on give them a lifetime ban on firearms.

Thus these simple misdemeanors should be re-heard, tossed out or have the lifetime ban lifted if their misdemeanor plea occurred before the Lautenberg Amendment took effect.

The defendants who plead guilty to a misdemeanor, were doing it under the assumption that their firearms rights would not be in jeopardy. If they knew that a plea of misdemeanor would have lead to a loss of firearm rights. They would have most likely fought it. This is a gross miscarriage of justice IMO. It is creating additional penalties after the fact after the case was settled should be prohibited. The fine or the time served was settled and any more penalties that took place AFTER the case was settled should not be retroactively applied.

plus you can't get a pardon for a misdemeanor , I know a guy that took that plea before this law was past , and this law goes back on old cases, there is/was no grandfathering so there was no way to know that down the road you would loose your gun rights , it needs a fix ,

 

[gc70]

The oral arguments in Castleman give some idea of where the Court is leaning. Justice Kagan said "I'm assuming that the Court will say physical touching goes too far, that that's not included under 922." That suggests the Court will not fully accept the government's position and there will be some definition of a level of force required to satisfy the federal law.

The first half of the discussion was about levels of force, but the second half was dominated by discussion of how to craft a reasonable solution, assuming a level of force differentiation. A lot, or most, of the states do not have laws that make that differentiation and/or case records do not reflect the differentiation, possibly making it impossible to prove that a former DV conviction met the requirements for disqualification. A lot of people might potentially benefit from that type of result. However, the orals also reflected the Court's angst over possibly throwing out disqualifications of real abusers in that scenario.

A whole lot is potentially at stake in this case.

[Thanks to Al Norris for posting the link to the oral arguments.]

 

[Midwest]

The oral arguments in Castleman give some idea of where the Court is leaning. Justice Kagan said "I'm assuming that the Court will say physical touching goes too far, that that's not included under 922." That suggests the Court will not fully accept the government's position and there will be some definition of a level of force required to satisfy the federal law.

The first half of the discussion was about levels of force, but the second half was dominated by discussion of how to craft a reasonable solution, assuming a level of force differentiation. A lot, or most, of the states do not have laws that make that differentiation and/or case records do not reflect the differentiation, possibly making it impossible to prove that a former DV conviction met the requirements for disqualification. A lot of people might potentially benefit from that type of result. However, the orals also reflected the Court's angst over possibly throwing out disqualifications of real abusers in that scenario.

A whole lot is potentially at stake in this case.

[Thanks to Al Norris for posting the link to the oral arguments.]

They should be arguing about the legality and constitutionality of creating additional penalties for the same offense after the fact after the case was already settled and fines and penalties were already paid.

If this was contract law, the Lautenberg Amendment would have been thrown out long ago. You can't create a legal contract, and agree on everything with everything all signed and legal...and then one of the parties adds extra conditions to it without consent of the other person months or years down the road. People go to court for breaking contracts.

The Lautenberg Amendment over rode cases that already were settled. The defendants opportunity for redress for these extra penalties were denied and therefore illegal. Their legal rights were denied twice. First for right of redress in light of new penalties for an already settled case, and second for the loss of guaranteed constitutional rights due to an unconstitutional law.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

This is one to keep an eye on. I'm pretty liberal but I would actually go a bit further; once a person has paid their debt to society I think it's reasonable that there should be a process whereby full citizenship is restored. I'm not saying every rapist or robber should be allowed to own a gun but I don't think a felony should be a blanket prohibition.

Certainly a misdemeanor shouldn't prevent you from owning a gun, IMOHO.

 

[tarosean]

While we have made great strides recently concerning RKBA. I don't think we will win this one.

 

[22-rimfire]

Pretty tough issue with all the different states having different definitions. I consider it a freedom and government over reach issue.

 

[JRH6856]

They should be arguing about the legality and constitutionality of creating additional penalties for the same offense after the fact after the case was already settled and fines and penalties were already paid.

But they aren't arguing this because for the court, it is not an issue.

Lautenberg is immune to ex post facto arguments as the Court has decided that it imposes no additional criminal punishment, but is a status regulation. IOW, the 2A rights are regulated due to the offecder's status as a convicted offender, not as a punishment for eht crime. Regulation is not considered punishment. Courts have upheld the authority of the government to restrict the gun rights of categories of people, including criminals, the mentally ill, etc., ruling that prohibiting a narrow category of people from owning firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.

What the Court appears to be struggling with is balancing the intent of Congresss to limit the 2A rights of truly violent offenders against the rather imprecise and varied definitions of domestic violence in the various states as the offense at the state level can include acts that may not actually rise to the level of violence necessary to create the status that Congress seeks to regulate.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

You wouldn't believe how many cops were affected by a spat with their wife that turned into a DV conviction years ago. Then years later, they couldn't carry a gun.