Posted on 11/01/2015 5:15:36 PM PST by Elderberry
Court grants review in firearm-possession case
This afternoon the Court issued an initial group of orders from its October 30 Conference, adding one new case to its merits docket for the Term. The Justices had considered Voisine v. United States at two earlier Conferences before granting review today.
At issue are the convictions of two Maine men, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, for violating a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition by individuals who have previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Both men allege that their convictions under Maine law for simple assault and misdemeanor domestic violence assault, respectively, do not automatically qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for purposes of the federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), because both provisions of Maine law can be violated by conduct that is merely reckless, rather than intentional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected that argument, and the federal government urged the Court to deny review, but the Justices today disregarded that recommendation.
Notably, however, the Court agreed to review only the recklessness question; it declined to review a second question presented by the petition, which asked the Justices to rule on whether the ban on possession of firearms by individuals convicted of domestic violence violated their rights under the Second Amendment.
The case is likely to be scheduled for oral argument in late February or early March. We expect additional orders from today’s Conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m.
should have taken both. you can yell at someone and be slapped with domestic violence bs.
if there is no violent crime, denying weapons should not ever enter the equation at all.
Bfl
Actually, the SCOTUS needs to start working for a living! The should not be able to pick and choose what cases they take. If they're next on the hierarchy of the litigation, they should “have” to take the case. These old coots and cootettes, "wise Latrinas," and JINO Marxists, need to work, resign or be removed from their offices. As it stands, they are being paid too much for "their services."
The fact that many states require licenses for firearms but not for newspaper and other media employees is enough for the court to weigh in regarding the lawfulness of such control. If lawful gun use can be curtailed for unrelated offenses, can we start shutting down so-called reporters for offenses unrelated to their work?
The political hacks in black muumuus decided to not look at the Constitutionality of the overall law.
Color me surprised. Not.
Most State court systems are the same as the Federal on this, you get one appeal after trial after that it is up to the discretion of the court after review.
In the state of Texas, you can have a gun in your car when you’re traveling—and I’m usually traveling when I’m in my car, and in your home, without a license.
Well, I was supposed to have jury duty tomorrow. Had to call at 5 p.m. to see when I had to show up. Guess what, they now expect me to call again between 11:30 and noon to see if they need me at 1! Oh, and they reminded me that parking at the courthouse is no better than it's ever been, and they are still fighting with the city over overtime parking tickets. The court system is dysfunctional and the judges are just a bunch of former lawyers who couldn't make a living in private practice, plus they get to use their middle names!
It’s a violation of the rights of many simply accused during quarrels, many who have not physically assaulted anyone. It’s part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and was pushed by academic feminists, bar associations and other related socialist interests.
It would be better to focus on keeping weapons out of the hands of people under the influence of drugs that affect personal judgment or coordination (”incompetent” folks in early American speech and law: those without the mental capacity to make good decisions).
Looks interesting. This case would not have been taken except for the possibility of an overturn of lower court.
What should have been litigated is the ex post facto loss of Second Amendment Rights for individuals that plead guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault prior to the 1997 passage of the Lautenberg Amendment.
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.