Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

    Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case that would determine if someone convicted of domestic violence could be allowed, in some cases, to own a gun.

    The top US court, the final arbiter of America's most burning legal questions, will hear a challenge to a 1996 law making it illegal for someone to possess a firearm if they have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence involving physical force or a deadly weapon.

    James Castleman, from Tennessee, in 2001 pleaded guilty under that state's law to one count of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" against the mother of his child.

    In 2009, he was found to be in possession of various guns and was charged with "illegal possession of a firearm by a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence."

    At the time, he allegedly was purchasing guns and selling them on the black market.

    But in September of last year, a US appeals court in Cincinatti, Ohio ruled that the federal weapons law does not apply in Castleman's case.

    The appeals court judge threw out the charges because Tennessee's misdemeanor domestic assault law does not require that physical force be used -- a very low standard in the eyes of the federal court.
    Obama wont like this.

    http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...190543511.html
    Last edited by zack991; 10-01-2013 at 11:25 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    If you are a freeman, walking about us, you have the right to own, possess, and carry.

    If you committed a crime and free now, you have paid your debt to society and you should be whole again.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If you committed a crime and free now, you have paid your debt to society and you should be whole again.
    In theory, yes.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  4. #4
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I saw this earlier today and was planning to post a note, but already done!

    It appears from my quick skim that the issue at hand is that the federal law requires the domestic violence crime to actually be an act of violence, but Tennessee and apparently many other states, do not include that constraint in their "domestic violence" laws.

    Therefore, the lower court ruled that since the prior conviction could have been for a non-violent case of "domestic violence", (the records of lower cases simply do not always contain sufficient details of the conviction to make a proper judgement) the federal law cannot apply because it would be assuming facts that are not in evidence. (The example cited in one of the below links supposes a paper cut, or a stubbed toe - injuries that could certainly be illegally inflicted by a domestic partner, but which do not rise to the level of "violent" in the federal definition of the crime required to instate a ban on firearms ownership.)

    That's just my quick take, welcome corrections if I missed it.

    Some other interesting links:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...rt-review.html

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...s-v-castleman/

    TFred

    ETA: Another link. Boy, if the SCOTUS upholds this ruling, Obama and Bloomberg are gonna be deliriously angry.
    Last edited by TFred; 10-02-2013 at 02:05 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If you are a freeman, walking about us, you have the right to own, possess, and carry.

    If you committed a crime and free now, you have paid your debt to society and you should be whole again.
    Remember the sound bite:

    If a convicted felon is too dangerous to be walking around on the street with a gun, then he's also too dangerous to be walking around on the street without a gun!

    TFred

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Lots of cops currently holding unarmed desk jobs will be hoping to get their old jobs back!
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan 5 View Post
    In theory, yes.
    In ONE theory, yes. In another, no.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Remember the sound bite:

    If a convicted felon is too dangerous to be walking around on the street with a gun, then he's also too dangerous to be walking around on the street without a gun!

    TFred
    An opinion bite. One with which many can reasonably disagree.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I saw this earlier today and was planning to post a note, but already done!

    It appears from my quick skim that the issue at hand is that the federal law requires the domestic violence crime to actually be an act of violence, but Tennessee and apparently many other states, do not include that constraint in their "domestic violence" laws.

    Therefore, the lower court ruled that since the prior conviction could have been for a non-violent case of "domestic violence", (the records of lower cases simply do not always contain sufficient details of the conviction to make a proper judgement) the federal law cannot apply because it would be assuming facts that are not in evidence. (The example cited in one of the below links supposes a paper cut, or a stubbed toe - injuries that could certainly be illegally inflicted by a domestic partner, but which do not rise to the level of "violent" in the federal definition of the crime required to instate a ban on firearms ownership.)

    That's just my quick take, welcome corrections if I missed it.

    Some other interesting links:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...rt-review.html

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...s-v-castleman/

    TFred

    ETA: Another link. Boy, if the SCOTUS upholds this ruling, Obama and Bloomberg are gonna be deliriously angry.
    It would seem that the SCOTUS could both leave the conviction tossed and leave the law intact--which seems to be the correct ruling in order to answer the narrow question being asked. (Not saying that it is the correct ruling in the broader sense.)

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It would seem that the SCOTUS could both leave the conviction tossed and leave the law intact--which seems to be the correct ruling in order to answer the narrow question being asked. (Not saying that it is the correct ruling in the broader sense.)
    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

    The Lautenberg Amendment is probably as secure as anything can be under our system of laws. That's because the law itself is not under challenge - the application of the law to this one individual is what is being challenged.

    Does anybody else remember when scads of folks had their domestic violence convictions overturned administratively because they took a plea deal without being specifically informed of their rights and of the consequences of taking the plea? And how many of them remain prohibited persons because the feds have no way to restore 2A rights?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It would seem that the SCOTUS could both leave the conviction tossed and leave the law intact--which seems to be the correct ruling in order to answer the narrow question being asked. (Not saying that it is the correct ruling in the broader sense.)
    Of course. What I predict will happen is that the SCOTUS will uphold the ruling, which will require the several states to which this applies to go back and update their codes to more specifically clarify the definitions they use to match the federal law. I don't see how this is bad for anyone other than the gun-grabbers who want you to lose your gun rights for stepping on a spider.

    TFred

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Remember the sound bite:

    If a convicted felon is too dangerous to be walking around on the street with a gun, then he's also too dangerous to be walking around on the street without a gun!

    TFred

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    An opinion bite. One with which many can reasonably disagree.
    I don't think it is reasonable to disagree.

    The only other conclusion requires that you blame the gun for the crime or potential crime. We tend to not do that around here.

    TFred

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Marion County, Tennessee
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    An opinion bite. One with which many can reasonably disagree.
    And we encourage differing opinions. Here, I'll give you mine. Then, if you like, you can disagree without us hating each other. After all, this is OCDO not YouTube.

    My personal opinion on the matter is that persons not allowed to possess firearms should not be ABLE to possess them. (Note that there is obviously a difference between allowed and able, as repeat offenders take advantage of this difference every day.)

    How should we make them unable to possess firearms? The most effective means that I have seen in my short time paying attention includes placing the individual in question into one of the three places where he or she cannot possibly come into possession of a firearm:
    1) A prison cell
    2) A mental health ward
    3) A coffin
    And of the three, only one is guaranteed to be effective in keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous people.

    Please, feel free to discuss.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for stressed veterans and alleged domestic abusers.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that a DV incident in any one of the several states is a federal issue. But, this is just me.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I don't think it is reasonable to disagree.

    The only other conclusion requires that you blame the gun for the crime or potential crime. We tend to not do that around here.

    TFred
    There is no need to blame the gun to reasonably believe that people who have demonstrated a willingness to be unlawfully violent should be denied (after due process) the right to carry. That the length of that denial be required to be exactly the same length as the incarceration is also reasonable (I disagree with that), but not the only reasonable belief. Choosing between those two options (or other possibilities) is a policy, not a rights decision.

    Since the States generally set the penalties for crimes, it is they who should decide whether the denial of the RKBA should be part of the penalty for a particular crime and for how long. The feds should not be making the determination what rights should be taken away (after due process) for violations of State law. I think the courts are tending to think this way, as this case so far demonstrates.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    There is no need to blame the gun to reasonably believe that people who have demonstrated a willingness to be unlawfully violent should be denied (after due process) the right to carry. That the length of that denial be required to be exactly the same length as the incarceration is also reasonable (I disagree with that), but not the only reasonable belief. Choosing between those two options (or other possibilities) is a policy, not a rights decision.

    Since the States generally set the penalties for crimes, it is they who should decide whether the denial of the RKBA should be part of the penalty for a particular crime and for how long. The feds should not be making the determination what rights should be taken away (after due process) for violations of State law. I think the courts are tending to think this way, as this case so far demonstrates.

    <o>
    And you make my point. If a person has demonstrated a willingness to be unlawfully violent, then they should not be walking around on the street - at all!

    If your point is that they are more likely to be violent if they have a gun than if they do not have a gun, that point puts blame on the gun for the criminal's violent acts.

    More words don't change how simple this idea is.

    TFred

  18. #18
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    ISTM these laws are just a way to not do a proper background check. IOW, there are too many people wanting to lawfully carry, we can't look to see if your DV charge was bogus or questionable or if you're really a violent person so we just say no.

    Consider that the people we really fear are very violent, overly-entitled and walk around with guns and radios and bullet-proof vests and shotguns and many are taking steroids. Are we really that afraid of a guy who grabbed his wife to keep her from hitting him having a firearm if he qualifies otherwise. I don't want people who are routinely violent and out of control having guns, though.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    And you make my point. If a person has demonstrated a willingness to be unlawfully violent, then they should not be walking around on the street - at all!...
    That is unreasonable. By that standard, they should be in prison forever. Once they have so demonstrated, they are now in a constant state of having demonstrated. However, you are entitled to that unreasonable opinion. I will simply disagree with it.

    Anyway, I have made my case and don't feel the need to continue. Moving on.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That is unreasonable. By that standard, they should be in prison forever. Once they have so demonstrated, they are now in a constant state of having demonstrated. However, you are entitled to that unreasonable opinion. I will simply disagree with it.

    Anyway, I have made my case and don't feel the need to continue. Moving on.
    Sorry, wrong. The penalties for a crime have nothing to do with 'repayment of debt to society'. Prison terms are set up as a deterrent, in a perfect world no one would go to prison because, in the theory, the loss of freedom would be ultimately deterring. But they forgot that no criminal ever thinks they will be caught.

    You have immoral, sociopathic people who don't value life, or property and commit crimes. In a perfect world they should be permanently removed from society but that's not practical.

    The best one can do WRT firearm rights is to take them away if you're a felon. But that's not perfect, either is it? Prosecutors make mistakes, not all felonies are violent. So once again we have a lazy system setting up rules that won't be followed.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I know that I have moved on, but I must clarify something. I have been misrepresented. I said nothing about "paying a debt to society." I don't buy into that model at all. Sentencing is about punishment, deterrence, and prevention.

    Carry on, I am back out of this.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that a DV incident in any one of the several states is a federal issue. But, this is just me.
    The DV incident, in and of itself, is not a federal issue.

    The Lautenberg Amendment (which you should go research) took the Commerce Clause as the basis for being able to control the purchase/possession of a firearm tat had moved in interstate commerce.

    If all y'all would just pay attention, it would not be necessary to explain this over and over again.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    The DV incident, in and of itself, is not a federal issue.

    The Lautenberg Amendment (which you should go research) took the Commerce Clause as the basis for being able to control the purchase/possession of a firearm tat had moved in interstate commerce.

    If all y'all would just pay attention, it would not be necessary to explain this over and over again.

    stay safe.
    The Lautenberg Amendment makes a DV incident in one of the several states a federal issue, else The Lautenberg Amendment would be unenforceable in any one of the several states. The application of punishment for a DV incident in one of the several states is retained by that state except for the loss of a citizen's RTKBA which is mandated by the feds. I'm confident that many of the several states have a similar mandate contained within their law books.

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we all can be disarmed merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony as has been done for stressed veterans and alleged domestic abusers.
    Online gambling is a class C felony in my state. Which I wonder how they know?

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that a DV incident in any one of the several states is a federal issue. But, this is just me.
    I don't see it listed in the enumerated powers. The twisting of the interstate commerce clause is a lame excuse from the Feds.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Online gambling is a class C felony in my state. Which I wonder how they know?

    I don't see it listed in the enumerated powers. The twisting of the interstate commerce clause is a lame excuse from the Feds.
    NSA.....

    Consider the revocation of gun rights as a tax, to be paid with the forfeiture of private property, or the revocation of the ability to acquire new/used private property. See John Roberts and his view of the taxing powers of congress.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •