Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Yesterday's S.Ct. Ruling in Castleman case- "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence"

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Yesterday's S.Ct. Ruling in Castleman case- "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence"

    I made a little comment on this case in the political-hot-stuff section of this forum. Case was published yesterday. I'm sure people will use this opinion to create more trouble for gun owners. Please get in touch with me right away if it happens to you or someone you know.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...t-ruling-today
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    See, they just change the bar .. felons, misdemeanors .... littering is a felony, etc..

    Anyone who is a freeman can own, possess, carry a gun.

    To dangerous? WTF they doing outta prison/jail then?

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    The Empire Strikes Back!

    Notice to Firearms Dealers and Customers



    On March 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided in U.S. v.
    Castleman, Case No. 12-1371, that Title 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(9), a
    firearms disqualifier for the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, is
    satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery
    conviction. This decision effectively overrules the 4th Circuit decision in
    U.S. v. White, (2010 4th Cir Ct), that ruled a Virginia domestic assault
    conviction was not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence because it did
    not satisfy the "physical force" requirement. Individuals convicted of an
    offense that meets the federal definition of domestic violence are
    prohibited to possess firearms under federal law.



    Based on this ruling a previous firearms purchase approval does not ensure
    continued approval.



    Captain Thomas W. Turner

    Virginia Department of State Police
    The Captain is dead wrong, if I may respectfully say so. What the Court ruled was that a Tennessee law that required proof of bodily injury met the "force and violence" requirement. It does NOT overrule White; it made no mention of that case at all. The justices' personal opinions about what terrible things might happen if the legislature meant what it said, are just that, opinions, just like yours and mine - not law. However, this tells us how the VSP is going to structure its enforcement policy.

    I do not advise anyone acting on the basis of my opinion, to go out and attempt to purchase a gun from a dealer. It could lead to an arrest. My advice, instead, is to file an action for declaratory judgment and petition for restoration of rights, a belt-and-suspenders approach, if you do want to buy from dealers. It's better to do your legal stuff from outside of the jail.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964
    I got this notice as well.

    The implication is that those that once were legal are no longer legal. Making criminals out of lawful gun owners.

    Very sage advice User for those that wish to purchase and may be impacted by the ruling. Any advice for current owners that could be impacted?

    As a dealer, if asked, I am not sure what to say, any advice?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    If I were a prospective purchaser, I'd be filing an action for declaratory judgment and petition for restoration prospectively; If I'd already gotten into the transaction and been denied, I'd appeal the denial (get a lawyer, though, the reasons are legal and technical and will have to go up several levels and will end up being heard by a judge).

    If I were a dealer, I would give the person who'd been denied a copy of the "how to appeal" brochure, tell them what happened and why, tell them to call their lawyer right away, and let them go. I would not hold them by telling them there'd been a delay. And, when the VSP arrives, I'd probably tell them they need a subpoena for the documents. But that's just me. I wouldn't advise anyone not to co-operate with law enforcement. I figure that, if the cops want to arrest them at their home, they've already got the information necessary to do that.

    The reason I say all this is that they're going to want to charge the prospective purchaser with lying on the official form, a felony, and they could, in theory, charge him with federal offenses as well (though I've never heard of the VSP having done so). Keep in mind that all that's required for the arrest is probable cause, not proof of guilt. And a reasonably held, good faith belief that the arrest is appropriate is pretty much all that's required to relieve LEO's of civil liability under the affirmative defense called, "qualified immunity".

    I'm looking into filing such a suit right now for someone; anyone else who's interested in joining in a declaratory judgment suit should call me or send me an email. The people I'd want to talk to would be people whose rights will be affected by the VSP's change of policy. The sooner we get on this and the more people involved, the better.

    One more thing - people who purchased prior to the publication of Castleman were legal at that time. Whether they're lawfully in possession now is not a problem as long as they don't engaged in any acts involving actual "interstate commerce" - e.g., no trips with a rifle to W.Va. for hunting; no shipping guns to one's self in another state; no carrying guns in a vehicle under the Gun Owner's Protection Act. No buying or selling guns or ammo from a dealer or across state lines. Acts not involving interstate commerce, e.g., private in-state sales are not regulated by the Fed law and there is no state law prohibiting a person "convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" from being in possession as far as I know.
    Last edited by user; 03-29-2014 at 12:52 PM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    tidewater,va
    Posts
    1
    I'll try to frame this remark and some question in context of the Original post.


    Recently we saw the shelving /defeat of S.B.510, better know as the Favola bill.
    It did not pass.

    Then the Castleman decision rendered just a few days ago and the opinion of the VSP captain to dealers..



    Now my question is that if they sought a five year firearms ban against those convicted of stalking, and or
    domestic assault and battery with the Favola bill, SB510, notably VA. Code 18.2-57.2, that persons with these convictions would lose their right to own/possess guns for five years and be re-instated rights after "time served".

    I was under the impression that if so convicted, you lost that right to keep and bare firearms and have since learned Virginia law does not fall under the Lautenberg law.

    So, can a person convicted of misdemeanor assault in JD+R court in Virginia own a firearm and especially now in light of the Castleman opinions of the justices.

    Does this SCOTUS opinion overrule US Vs White as well as other regional courts that have ruled not in favor of the Lautenberg law, as well?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    chesapeake
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by georgejonesfan View Post
    I'll try to frame this remark and some question in context of the Original post.


    Recently we saw the shelving /defeat of S.B.510, better know as the Favola bill.
    It did not pass.

    Then the Castleman decision rendered just a few days ago and the opinion of the VSP captain to dealers..



    Now my question is that if they sought a five year firearms ban against those convicted of stalking, and or
    domestic assault and battery with the Favola bill, SB510, notably VA. Code 18.2-57.2, that persons with these convictions would lose their right to own/possess guns for five years and be re-instated rights after "time served".

    I was under the impression that if so convicted, you lost that right to keep and bare firearms and have since learned Virginia law does not fall under the Lautenberg law.

    So, can a person convicted of misdemeanor assault in JD+R court in Virginia own a firearm and especially now in light of the Castleman opinions of the justices.

    Does this SCOTUS opinion overrule US Vs White as well as other regional courts that have ruled not in favor of the Lautenberg law, as well?
    United States versus white was not overruled by this case. Someone in the situation that you just listed above is eligible to own a firearm in the state of Virginia. While I do not speak for Mr. Hawes what I believe he is saying is that someone convicted of 18.2–57.2 could encounter a problem while purchasing a handgun right now due to the Castleman decision. However, the Castleman decision does not overrule United States versus White. The Supreme Court based their decision entirely off of Tennessee's domestic violence statue. Tennessee's domestic violence statue requires knowingly and intentionally committing bodily injury. While the Virginia statue doesn't even require touching to be convicted. Again Mr. Hawes is by far the expert but I believe this is why Castleman does not affect Virginians

Posting Permissions

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