Posted on 02/25/2009 5:32:04 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
The Supreme Court today upheld a broad federal gun control law which strips gun rights from the many thousands of people who have been convicted of any domestic-violence crime.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices said the federal ban on gun possession was intended to keep "firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The law covers not only those who have felony convictions, she said, but also misdemeanors involving an assault or beating against a former or current spouse or a live-in partner, as well as a child, a parent or others who live together in the home.
"Firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination nationwide," Ginsburg wrote.
She cited a report from the National Institute of Justice which found that about 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by a spouse or partner each year. Many more such offenses are never reported, the report found.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Wilson's expansion of the police state powers of the federal government were a major blow to American freedom that we still feel today.
Wilson was responsible the third of what I've come to regard as America's five great strides away from being a Free Republic.
1830 - The Indian Removal Act
1860 - The Succession Crisis and Civil War
1917 - The American Protective League
1933 - The New Deal
2009 - "The Stimulus Package" etc. (We don't even know how bad Obama's abridgment of our liberties will be yet)
One note on my family history. My father's family were in western Missouri in 1917. They were German American; my grandfather was third generation, my oma was born in Pomerania. They were not pro-Kaiser but my grandfather owned a bakery that had been founded by his grandfather, who had served in a Missouri Union militia unit in the Civil War and had been active in civil war veterans affairs until he died. The APL, which coincidentally included a lot of pro-confederate and KKK members in its ranks raided their home and the bakery, busting up the place, looking for seditious literature. Finding nothing they could pin a charge on the APL organized a boycott and drove my grandfather out of business. The family moved to Oklahoma in early 1918.
If Obama's "Citizen's Army" comes to be this is the sort of thing we will looking at.
LOL!
Ginsberg would never acknowledge that as a potential problem.
From the Dissent:
“The grammatical rule of the last antecedent indicates that the domestic relationship is a required element of the predicate offense.”
Good God. SCOTUS does grammar.
That war has already begun. We you expecting a formal declaration? This ruling, under desperate circumstances, could lead to "a Waco every week."
I think the Supreme Court not tossing out something so obviously unconstitutional sends a strong signal that the Federal Government conquered the Union a long time ago.
This is nothing to worry about. Totally a technical law decision, and a minor one at that.
This was not a Second Amendment case. The 2nd had nothing to do with this case.
Brain seizure.
The question is...once the restraining order is lifted (and they are often not permanent)...does it mean that any-one having once been under a restraining order(but not currently) can not own a gun?
A lot of times a protective order, which is ridiculously easy to get due to bias towards the woman and political pressure (often in the face of proof against domestic violence), will include a provision requiring the man to turn in all firearms to the Court. This is on pain of contempt of court, which could carry fines and jailtime.
Yup Roberts and Scalia dissented.
I know, and since these orders are sometimes asked for out of spousal litigation strategy rather than any real need for protection, it sucks. The SC didn't speak to that because it talked about conviction. Having a temporary protective order, however unjust, is not the same as a conviction. If local/state authorities interpret temporary orders as a firearms disqualification -- as they do --, its another 2A violation. But the Supreme Court didn't go there.
Bull.. Thousands of people with minor domestic squabbles will lose their 2nd amendment rights. -- this is not a 'minor' matter..
They will live to regret their political, unconstitutional actions.
I was in a Navy Reserve anti-terrorism unit. It’s army counterpart would be more like combat support such as MP vice infantry. However, he could not deploy (since he could not qualify). We had him transferred to another unit where weapons weren’t an issue.
all of them. a restraining order requires one person’s word. automatic guilty.
not sure about your state, but in MN you get in a verbal argument with your roomate and that too can be considered a domestic if they feel threatened.
You misunderstand. The title is very deceiving.
This case was not about the 2nd amendment. Read the decision - the 2nd isn’t even mentioned. There were no arguments about whether or not taking away the RKBA of a person convicted of a misdemeanor is constitutional or not. That would be about the 2nd and I look forward to such a case, but it’s not what this case was about.
The whole point of this case was that Hayes was challenging his losing his RKBA based off of not having been charged and convicted with a domestic violence crime. Rather he was convicted of simple battery. That’s the point - the law says “domestic violence” and his charge said “battery.” That was the entire point of the case, and the only thing contested.
Ginsberg basically said “You were convicted of beating up your wife. That’s a crime of domestic violence regardless of what the city called the charges against you.” And I agree with her.
I happen to strongly disagree with her that taking away someone’s RKBA for a misdemeanor is not unconstitutional. Personally, I think taking away a person’s RKBA for a non-violent felony is unconstitutional, but that’s another matter.
This case was very narrowly defined and decided, and had nothing to do with the constitutionality of taking away someone’s RKBA for a misdemeanor. It wasn’t about the Second Amendment.
Another reason I’m hesitant to date women.
Seriously, how do I know that if she doesn’t like how the relationship is going, instead of ending it, she calls up the police and I end up in a world of trouble?
It’s just not worth it to date some women these days. They’d rather “get even” (it’s not even getting even” than handle it themselves like an adult.
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.