Supreme Court reviews gun laws in context of domestic violence.

[rdhood]

However, the orals also reflected the Court's angst over possibly throwing out disqualifications of real abusers in that scenario.

Generally speaking, our legal system has aimed to avoid conviction of the innocent... even if a few bad apples get away under the same law. Better to have five guilty men go free than one innocent man wrongly convicted. Or, at least that is the motivation I have heard all of my life....

For all of those commenting on SCOTUS questioning, you can't tell which way SCOTUS might be leaning by their questions. They nearly always play devils advocate with both sides of the issue being heard. Google around, and you will find that even the most accurate experts rarely predict a session of SCOTUS decisions with more than a 60 or 70% accuracy.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I think one important issue is that not all domestic violence is created equal.

You have cases like one mentioned earlier, where a fight got a little out of control ten years ago or whatever, and a guy shoved his wife. Poor decision. They make up, he doesn't do anything violent to anyone for ten years, and he still can't buy a gun? I am sympathetic.

You have cases like a drunk fight between college roommates five years ago that had the police called in by a neighbor on a noise complaint... well, they're roommates, so BAM, domestic violence conviction. Poor decision, but I am still sympathetic.

But you also have FREQUENT cases where there is a pattern of domestic violence that only generates a conviction for maybe one in two dozen actual incidents. The abuser's family is living in constant fear and for many reasons is reluctant to report the abuse. So this guy has a long history of disregard for the welfare of his own family, anger management problems, and willingness to use illegal violent force for his own ends. But hey, it's only a misdemeanor. You know, it's not like people with issues like that ever end up escalating their abuse up to and including homicide. Or anything like that.

However, all of these incidents do have something in common- the person with the conviction did something violent and stupid. While you can reasonably say that some of them are being punished in excess of what the circumstances of their crime deserve, none of them would be punished at all if they had gone through their whole lives without offering violence to others... like the overwhelming majority of us do.

Everybody's actions have consequences. The consequences may be too harsh in some cases, and so I think it's reasonable to lobby for exceptions or a process to regain your rights, but I don't think anybody sitting on a DV conviction can whine about how "somebody done me wrong!"

 

[Mike1234567]

Why don't they just make domestic violence cases felonies?

EDIT: The above was stated in ignorance of how DV cases are handled.

 

[Old Dog]

Many excellent points have been brought up in this thread. Madcap_Magician, good post.

On a purely intellectual level, I have always objected to Lautenberg. (And, to be sure, I get tired of having to sign the silly "I don't beat my wife" form every year and before every weapons certification training).

On another level, having had to respond to oh so many DV calls, I've seen the most abhorrent, disgusting, venal, evil and just plain stupid behavior over and over ... One gets to the point, especially after having made multiple trips to the same apartment complex/house, that one is all for not only never letting the aggressor (and often, both parties) ever have a firearm again, but also taking away their scissors, knives, frying pans, shoes ... and revoking their license to breed (oh, wait, we can't do that). Hey, and you know what? Alcohol is almost always involved.

Another point: DV is a strange breed of crime, and there are women (and some men, too) out there who know that by claiming DV, they can ruin their spouse's (or domestic partner's) career forever. It's easy to create "evidence" of violence, and many prosecutors will avidly go after alleged DV offenders (usually the ones who can't afford good lawyers) and the convictions are often easily obtained. Just like the bogus claims of child sexual abuse used by vindictive spouses to facilitate their exit strategy from a messy relationship (and ensure gaining custody of the children), these laws can be easily manipulated and maliciously abused.

 

[JRH6856]

Why don't they just make domestic violence cases felonies?

Because, since domestic violence can include simple assault which is normally a misdemeanor, the next question would be, "Why don't they make all simple assault cases felonies?"

(Simple assault generally does not involve physical violence resulting in injury, it can be touching without permission. Rasie that to the level of a felony and a whole lot more people will lose their 2A rights. I suspect simple assault charges against CHL holders would become a whole lot more common in some states, just to remove their 2A rights.)

 

[Mike1234567]

Because, since domestic violence can include simple assault which is normally a misdemeanor, the next question would be, "Why don't they make all simple assault cases felonies?"

(Simple assault generally does not involve physical violence resulting in injury, it can be touching without permission. Rasie that to the level of a felony and a whole lot more people will lose their 2A rights. I suspect simple assault charges against CHL holders would become a whole lot more common in some states, just to remove their 2A rights.)

Good point. I should have been clearer with my statement. Surely there are methods at our disposal to differentiate "minor" domestic violence indictments/convictions from "major" ones... those which involve beatings and other physical assaults vs. just yelling, name-calling soft shoves/poking that leave no marks, etc. Don't we... aren't there?

 

[JRH6856]

Surely there are methods at our disposal to differentiate "minor" domestic violence indictments/convictions from "major" ones... those which involve beatings and other physical assaults vs. just yelling, name-calling soft shoves/poking that leave no marks, etc. Don't we... aren't there?

I think that is what the Court is going to tell us, if they can figure it out.

 

[gc70]

Good point. I should have been clearer with my statement. Surely there are methods at our disposal to differentiate "minor" domestic violence indictments/convictions from "major" ones... those which involve beatings and other physical assaults vs. just yelling, name-calling soft shoves/poking that leave no marks, etc. Don't we... aren't there?

"Major" and "minor" incidents of domestic violence should arguably be differentiated by being charged as a felony versus a misdemeanor. The oral arguments in Castleman noted that there is a long history of incidents involving unrelated parties being charged as felonies, but being charged as misdemeanors when they involve related parties.

The oral arguments were also clear that only a minority of states (I think 14 was the number cited) have laws that fully or clearly differentiate the nature of domestic violence misdemeanors. A substantial part of the government's arguments were directed toward interpreting 922(g) broadly to overcome that deficiency in state laws.

I wonder whether the Court might reach a conclusion similar to Kelo - that the language in 922(g) is what it is and, since it keys on state laws, it is up to the states to decide whether they want to change state laws to better conform to 922(g).

 

[Mike1234567]

So if we beat our wives or children the charge might be downgraded from a felony to a misdemeanor? We can get by with beating the crap out of our wives or kids with just a misdemeanor charge? Good grief, how often does THAT happen?!? No wonder there's so much confusion. The whole system is goofy!!

 

[JRH6856]

I wonder whether the Court might reach a conclusion similar to Kelo - that the language in 922(g) is what it is and, since it keys on state laws, it is up to the states to decide whether they want to change state laws to better conform to 922(g).

Since that is possibly the worst thing they could do, I suspect that is what they will do. It would allow gun friendly legislatures to reduce the scope of domestic violence offenses, and allow gun averse legislatures to do the opposite and expand the scope to include as many offenses as possible.

 

[MarkDido]

The term "Domestic Violence" is used way to frequently by Deputies in my Sheriff's Office.

I work in the Records Department, and they will label a "brother on brother / sister on sister" fight as domestic violence.

They will list each as a defendant AND a victim on the affidavit.

The charge should be "mutual combat"

And the contact between players doesn't have to a knock down, drag out fist fight. I've read reports when one person nudging another was classified as DV

Slapping the domestic violence label on everything cheapens the purpose of the law.

 

[MarkDido]

Why don't they just make domestic violence cases felonies?

See the post above.

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^ When I posted that question I assumed there was common sense in the law but I should've known better.

 

[JRH6856]

Slapping the domestic violence label on everything cheapens the purpose of the law.

It doesn't cheapen the purpose of the Lautenberg Amendment. it is right in line with it. i wonder how many of your deputies are aware of the federal regulatory consequences of a DV charge.

 

[gc70]

I wonder whether the Court might reach a conclusion similar to Kelo - that the language in 922(g) is what it is and, since it keys on state laws, it is up to the states to decide whether they want to change state laws to better conform to 922(g).

Since that is possibly the worst thing they could do, I suspect that is what they will do. It would allow gun friendly legislatures to reduce the scope of domestic violence offenses, and allow gun averse legislatures to do the opposite and expand the scope to include as many offenses as possible.

The government is afraid of a requirement for a defined level of violence because it would invalidate most DV disqualifications since 922(g) was passed and in the future it would only capture a subset of current disqualifications, even if every state's laws were rewritten to conform to the new standard.

From the government's oral argument in Castleman:

Respondent asks this Court to adopt an interpretation of 922(g)(9) that would indisputably exclude the assault and battery laws of almost all of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. That would render the statute a virtual dead letter from the moment of its enactment until today, and it would leave that dangerous loophole wide open

 

[JRH6856]

Some of those DV disqualifications probably apply to truly violent offenders (actually, I know they do). I can understand the govts. objections and the Court's angst. If they can't find a way to exclude non-violent "assaults" from DV classification, then they may find a Kelo type ruling their least offensive option and leave it to the states to make the distinction.

 

[Cee Zee]

I think the bigger issue is the listing of anyone treated for depression as mentally ill and not eligible to own a gun. Doctors pushed those drugs on everyone at one point. They knew it was an easy appointment where they just had to write a prescription and get paid. They knew that stuff was addictive too. They would take one look at you and say you were depressed and write you a prescription whether you wanted it or not or needed it or not. Now they have taken away your gun rights. What a joke. They may have even known that eventually the government would push to have those people stripped of their gun rights. Doctors have played fast and loose with the truth about guns many times. They have tried to make them health issues forever. They have refused to treat people who own guns. Why would they not set you up to lose your gun rights?

This could be huge if that's the way it goes down. Very huge.

 

[JRH6856]

I think the bigger issue is the listing of anyone treated for depression as mentally ill and not eligible to own a gun.… This could be huge if that's the way it goes down. Very huge.

It could be, CeeZee, but that is a different subject entirely and deserves its own threat without hijacking this one. It is something that might happen. The Court case under discussion here is about something that has already happened, and what the Court is considering doing about the consequences. Let's not get off track.

 

[Cee Zee]

Gee and here I thought I responded to someone else bringing up the issue of depression and gun ownership. Read post #6.

Then you might want to read up on NY's new law that, "...requires mental health professionals to tell local officials if they believe a patient is likely to hurt himself or herself or someone else. Police officials would then be authorized to seize guns that person might own. The name of the patient would also be entered into state and national registries to prevent future firearm purchases."

Other states require a court ordered mental illness judgement to strip someone of their gun rights. You have to have been confined in a hospital because of your mental issue. But of course the gun grabbers are out to make it much easier to take away your guns. That's what they do. Excuse me for being concerned about the encroachment of laws that not only set up doctors as judges and juries but also are retroactive to stuff that might have happened to you when you were 10. Have a bit of an issue fitting in during your adolescent years - no guns for you.

But feel free to run your board any way you wish. Wait a minute...

 

[shootingthebreeze]

This issue with domestic abusers having a firearm is high on my list based on an event locally.
A woman and her son were killed by her estranged husband who after killing them killed himself- a murder suicide.
The husband had a violent history- even was admitted to a psych unit but upon discharge was given his firearms back by the police.
That should not have happened.
This kind of permissive action, allowing a person with a known violent history to keep his firearms makes me more inclined towards more stringent firearm laws in the US.

 

[Mike1234567]

Gee and here I thought I responded to someone else bringing up the issue of depression and gun ownership. Read post #6.

Then you might want to read up on NY's new law that, "...requires mental health professionals to tell local officials if they believe a patient is likely to hurt himself or herself or someone else. Police officials would then be authorized to seize guns that person might own. The name of the patient would also be entered into state and national registries to prevent future firearm purchases."

Other states require a court ordered mental illness judgement to strip someone of their gun rights. You have to have been confined in a hospital because of your mental issue. But of course the gun grabbers are out to make it much easier to take away your guns. That's what they do. Excuse me for being concerned about the encroachment of laws that not only set up doctors as judges and juries but also are retroactive to stuff that might have happened to you when you were 10. Have a bit of an issue fitting in during your adolescent years - no guns for you.

But feel free to run your board any way you wish. Wait a minute...

I don't know about other states but that's been a requirement in Texas for a very long time. I don't know about firearm seizure but I believe the individual is held until family members attest that all firearms, kitchen knives, hammers, etc. are removed from the premises or are locked away from the subject's ability to access them. I have no idea about a state registry but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Cee Zee]

Is that true even for a diagnosis of depression Mike? Whatever the case I don't like seeing doctors being made into judges. Too many of them have a political ax to grind. Does it happen that way often in Texas? Lucky for me that here in Ohio unless you were committed to a treatment facility by a court then they can't take your rights.

I've had doctors take one look at me and declare I was depressed. Never mind at the time that my father was dying and I was out of work and struggling. That wouldn't make "normal" humans depressed. Do they even think that they will keep people away from doctors with this stuff? Someone who really needs a little help might well avoid getting that help because they don't want to lose their gun rights or in Texas their hammer rights, their kitchen knife rights, etc..

 

[MErl]

Cee Zee, here is discussion of a law passed last year in IL that allows school admin to anonymously report someone to state police and get their FOID revoked. That crap is not limited just to NY, states are in a race to see who can be the most restrictive since mental health is now fair game.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=736778

 

[Mike1234567]

Is that true even for a diagnosis of depression Mike? Whatever the case I don't like seeing doctors being made into judges. Too many of them have a political ax to grind. Does it happen that way often in Texas? Lucky for me that here in Ohio unless you were committed to a treatment facility by a court then they can't take your rights.

I've had doctors take one look at me and declare I was depressed. Never mind at the time that my father was dying and I was out of work and struggling. That wouldn't make "normal" humans depressed. Do they even think that they will keep people away from doctors with this stuff? Someone who really needs a little help might well avoid getting that help because they don't want to lose their gun rights or in Texas their hammer rights, their kitchen knife rights, etc..

No, not simple depression... severe depression with suicidal thoughts and/or anxiety with aggressive thoughts toward others. Frankly, I see the need to report that if it's pronounced enough. But, as you stated, doctors can have their own agendas and they do make mistakes and overreact. So... be careful what you tell anyone with the power to change your life.

 

[JRH6856]

be careful what you tell anyone with the power to change your life.

Or, be careful not to give anyone that power to change your life.