• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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-could-end-domestic-violence-gun-ban-190543511.html
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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-...stic-abusers-draws-u-s-high-court-review.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-castleman/

TFred

ETA: Another link. Boy, if the SCOTUS upholds this ruling, Obama and Bloomberg are gonna be deliriously angry.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Lots of cops currently holding unarmed desk jobs will be hoping to get their old jobs back!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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-...stic-abusers-draws-u-s-high-court-review.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-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.)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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.
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
 

Silvertongue

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
213
Location
Marion County, Tennessee
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
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
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 
Top