Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court reviews gun law for domestic violence offenders (Lautenberg Amendment)
yahoo ^ | Jan 16, 2014

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: New Jersey; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; banglist; jamescastleman; lautenberg; newjersey; scotus; soniasotomayor; tennessee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 01/16/2014 3:55:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks for posting this.


2 posted on 01/16/2014 3:58:35 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

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. :-)


3 posted on 01/16/2014 3:58:59 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

How did they get around this for the millions of law enforcement and military?


4 posted on 01/16/2014 4:00:13 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS ping.


5 posted on 01/16/2014 4:02:42 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I’ve heard that it cost a lot of cops their jobs.


6 posted on 01/16/2014 4:06:41 PM PST by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

My hope for the just (and Constitutional) outcome is slim.


7 posted on 01/16/2014 4:10:09 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: "How about pinching or biting, hair pulling, shoving, grabbing, hitting, slapping... Would they in all situations be violence?"

I'm gonna go with a "no" on some of those, but if the Wide Latina request a demo, she's on her own.

8 posted on 01/16/2014 4:11:29 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
On the off chance the Supreme RubberStamp knocks down this bogus infringement, 2A may still have a chance.

     but don't hold yer breath

9 posted on 01/16/2014 4:12:31 PM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“No. 12–1371. 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.)”


10 posted on 01/16/2014 4:18:09 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
How did they get around this for the millions of law enforcement and military?

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.

11 posted on 01/16/2014 4:18:55 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1371_2cp3.pdf


12 posted on 01/16/2014 4:20:07 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: andyk

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.


13 posted on 01/16/2014 4:25:45 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Oral arguments linked at post 12.


14 posted on 01/16/2014 4:26:24 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; gundog

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.


15 posted on 01/16/2014 4:27:56 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Sean Penn was. Don’t know of any specific cases of cops or military.


16 posted on 01/16/2014 4:42:28 PM PST by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I thought United States v. Hayes desided the misdemeanor was sufficient.

Can someone tell me what’s different here?


17 posted on 01/16/2014 4:51:28 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Great. Another opportunity for the political hacks in black muumuus to decide what the Constitution says this week.


18 posted on 01/16/2014 4:53:25 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Having some small say in who gets to hold the whip doesn't make you any less a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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...


19 posted on 01/16/2014 4:59:12 PM PST by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

...The People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”


20 posted on 01/16/2014 5:00:45 PM PST by faithhopecharity (C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson