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 previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: bike800
They didn’t...it was retroactive, and it cost many cops their jobs

Then it's unconstitutional on at least two fronts, ex post fact and infringement.

21 posted on 01/16/2014 5:17:35 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism" Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This is another law where you are guilty until proven innocent. Just like orders of protection.

Wifey gets pissed at you during a divorce and you are finished. Look at your neighbor cross eyed and he files an OOP on you and the cops are at your door to take your guns and your neighbor doesn’t even have to show up in court. DUI, guns taken away.

Then try and get your guns back from the police.


22 posted on 01/16/2014 5:21:27 PM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All
The only reason that the Founding States didn't include the power to regulate arms in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohited to Congress, imo, is that the Founding States had already delegated to Congress the power to raise and support an army, which reasonably includes the power to legislatively address military firearms issues. The Militia Acts of 1792 are evidence of this.

But federal military gun issues aside, regulating guns for ordinary citizens is a 10th Amendment protected power, imo, such power now limited by 2nd Amendment applied to states via 14th Amendment.

In fact, since Congress has 14A power only to make laws which strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A protected gun rights, Congress is arguably limited to making gun laws for ordinary citizens which strengthen their gun rights.

On the other hand, since federal gun laws are not an issue in this case, it's actually up to voters to spur their state lawmakers to make gun laws which reasonably limit gun rights with respect to the example of this case. Letting the Supreme Court decide this case just gives activist justices an opportunity to unconstitutonally expand federal government powers imo.

In fact, I find it disturbing that federal gun laws for ordinary citizens seem to have appeared in the books during the FDR era when socialist FDR and corrupt Congress blatantly ignored the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.

23 posted on 01/16/2014 5:43:14 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

They’ve been able to skirt the ex post facto because it’s “not a punishment” (punishING though it may be). It’s supposedly a public safety thing and past convictions are just used as a gauge to predict future behavior and prevent future criminality.


24 posted on 01/16/2014 6:39:07 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; Defender2; ...

Active Duty ping.


25 posted on 01/16/2014 8:10:59 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
While you can't always tell what the 'justices' are really thinking by just the questions they ask during oral arguments, it looks like the court is going to rule against the defendant in this case. You'll find the transcript of the arguments here. I think that it is interesting that the 2nd amendment didn't come up at all. Doesn't seem to be a part of this case at all. Weird.
26 posted on 01/16/2014 8:41:09 PM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
On the other hand, since federal gun laws are not an issue in this case, it's actually up to voters to spur their state lawmakers to make gun laws which reasonably limit gun rights with respect to the example of this case. Letting the Supreme Court decide this case just gives activist justices an opportunity to unconstitutonally expand federal government powers imo.

It is a federal law which is at issue in this case, which is why it's before SCOTUS. The statute is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which makes it a federal crime to possess a gun if you were previously convicted (in state or federal court) of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” Different states define "domestic violence" differently, so the issue before SCOTUS is what state crimes qualify-- only those involving serious physical harm, or those involving less serious kinds of force.

The Court is not considering a constitutional question in this case, but only an issue of interpreting what Congress meant (which means that Congress could clarify the statute if it doesn't agree with what the Court decides).

27 posted on 01/16/2014 9:00:35 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; All
It is a federal law which is at issue in this case, ....

Mea culpa. Thank you for the clarification and the additional information.

Please indicate which constitutional clause expressly delegates to Congress the specific power to regulate firearms for ordinary citizens. There are no such clauses imo.

Again, the 14th Amendment only gives Congress the power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities, including the 2nd Amendment.

28 posted on 01/16/2014 9:20:56 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Domestic violence, that thing the state can bring charges against anyone on behalf of anyone even if no one has made a complaint.

What convenience for the nanny state agenda to hold others to standards the state itself would never follow...


29 posted on 01/16/2014 9:46:29 PM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Oh, it causes quite the hassle for military folks. Quick way for a military spouse to win at divorce.

Claim, or threaten to claim, hubby smacked her around. Not only do you get civilian law enforcement breathing down your throat, but military authorities. And, they remove your access to firearms if there's a protection order against you.

And, the neatest trick of all (sarcasm) is you can be charged for the same incident in civilian courts AND military court - even if you were found not guilty in the civilian court the military side can still find something to go after you for. Oh yeah, and it doesn't count as double jeopardy.

30 posted on 01/16/2014 9:48:51 PM PST by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

So it is still going on, it is some of the most amazing legislation to ever happen here.


31 posted on 01/16/2014 10:05:17 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 30 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

They took an expectedly polluted case, when they should have heard the Emerson case instead (which they refused). People with restraining orders against them (no conviction required—only an allegation) are also subject to the mandatory 5-year federal prison sentence if found in possession of firearms.

Granted, there shouldn’t be any such law that violates the Second Amendment for only one kind of misdemeanor. And yes, the polluted case. They found a real bad guy to base their wrongful decisions on, when there are many with no priors who committed lesser misdeeds.


32 posted on 01/17/2014 9:13:14 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Hence I don’t keep more than 1 or 2 in the same location.


33 posted on 01/17/2014 9:18:30 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ooops, bad example. LOL You would think "shall not be infringed" is SCOTUS' strict limitation, but the door was opened to overturning the 2nd Amendment long ago.

34 posted on 01/17/2014 9:23:06 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ 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?"

Um... I think context plays a lot into making that determination as a quick perusal of some of the more licentious corners of the Internet would appear to show...

35 posted on 01/17/2014 9:27:48 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Domestic violence” is the liberal feminazi-inspired definition for what happens when a man hears a woman insult his income, manhood, parents, occupation, or all of the above one too many times and gives her a “shut up” slap that wouldn’t even kill a wasp. Or when he HITS HER BACK.

It’s also what a few men - who would have otherwise never harmed a fly - have committed in a minute of desperation when they’ve discovered that their wife is about to file a “no-fault divorce” *spit* and walk off with half his income, at least one car, the kids, the house, and most of his worldly possessions, and he will have absolutely no recourse...before he attempts to flee with his children and whatever he can grab. Few of them even make it out of their home state unless they live next to a border line.


36 posted on 01/17/2014 9:28:43 AM PST by EternalHope13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
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.

Thomas got hell precisely BECAUSE he's a good and honorable man. Can't have people like that in positions of power over the federal government.

37 posted on 01/17/2014 9:32:00 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The law exempts law enforcement, by the way, in that service weapons are exempt unless specifically prohibited by a local court restraining order.

Another aside: the law is part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)—quite a feminist political push in the ‘90s. Possession of ammunition is also illegal for affected individuals.


38 posted on 01/17/2014 9:45:21 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Web page of a feminist author on legal issues regarding law enforcement. It shows a peek or two at the kind of advocacy behind the law.

http://www.dwetendorf.com/Legal_GunLaw.htm


39 posted on 01/17/2014 9:53:39 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Headline next week from the Brady bunch...

"Boxers, MMA pros, and all martial arts enthusiasts now banned from owning guns..."

40 posted on 01/17/2014 10:49:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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