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 ...
Then it's unconstitutional on at least two fronts, ex post fact and infringement.
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.
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.
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.
Active Duty ping.
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).
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.
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...
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.
So it is still going on, it is some of the most amazing legislation to ever happen here.
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.
Hence I don’t keep more than 1 or 2 in the same location.
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.
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...
“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.
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.
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.
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
Headline next week from the Brady bunch...
"Boxers, MMA pros, and all martial arts enthusiasts now banned from owning guns..."
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.