Skip to comments.US Supreme Court reviews gun law for domestic violence offenders (Lautenberg Amendment)
Posted on 01/16/2014 3:55:19 PM PST by Red Steel
Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court heard arguments as it struggles to determine whether domestic violence offenders could be barred from possessing a firearm even if they have only committed minor offenses.
The high court's nine justices took up the case of James Castleman, who argues that his domestic assault conviction in Tennessee for intentionally or knowingly causing "bodily injury" to the mother of his child did not prohibit him under federal law from owning a gun.
Investigators later learned that he was illegally trafficking guns, and Castleman was charged with violating a ban on gun possession for people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ...
"If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
"Do you have to have a special rule for if I punch my wife in the nose?
"Any physical action that hurts somebody is violence, isn't it?"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: "How about pinching or biting, hair pulling, shoving, grabbing, hitting, slapping... Would they in all situations be violence?"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Thanks for posting this.
These justices are charlatans. They know how they’re voting. They ask questions to appear impartial. Except for Thomas, who I hold in the highest esteem. :-)
How did they get around this for the millions of law enforcement and military?
I’ve heard that it cost a lot of cops their jobs.
My hope for the just (and Constitutional) outcome is slim.
I'm gonna go with a "no" on some of those, but if the Wide Latina request a demo, she's on her own.
but don't hold yer breath
“No. 121371. United States v. James Alvin Castleman.
Certiorari to the C. A. 6th Circuit.
For petitioner: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
For respondent: Charles A. Rothfeld, Washington, D. C.
(1 hour for argument.)”
They didn't. The law was retroactive and people lost their careers because of it.
Seems the only person it didn't apply to was Sean Penn.
Thomas is the only one of them who is worth his weight. What that man had to go through in his confirmation hearings was a travesty. I have never seen some much pure, unadulterated hate for one man in all my life. It was the 1950-60s type dimocrats against a black person in those hearings. All the dims slipped back into their old days mode to attack him.
Oral arguments linked at post 12.
I remember the noise and early examples of problems for cops and perhaps military, but I had the impression that it died out and that government people were still carrying/owning guns after domestic issues.
Sean Penn was. Don’t know of any specific cases of cops or military.
I thought United States v. Hayes desided the misdemeanor was sufficient.
Can someone tell me what’s different here?
Great. Another opportunity for the political hacks in black muumuus to decide what the Constitution says this week.
They didn’t...it was retroactive, and it cost many cops their jobs. My opinion is it is just a backdoor way of increasing the numbers of people that can’t own firearms...
...The People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.