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 ...
Zero being elected nullified Heller, I’m sad to say.
We’ll see, but you may be right. This ruling reopens the door I’m afraid
If this is the case I think it is, the article misses the point. The issue was what puts the “domestic” in domestic violence. RKBA was coincidental, not central.
Bull.. Thousands of people with minor domestic squabbles will lose their 2nd amendment rights. -- this is not a 'minor' matter..
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.
You admit that "-- The whole point of this case was that Hayes was challenging his losing his RKBA," -- And that, -- " 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” [ thus you can lose your RKBA - my paraphrase]..
And I agree with her.
So, you agree with her that his 'crime' can result in a loss of his RKBA. That 'agreement' also means that thousands of people with minor domestic squabbles will lose their 2nd amendment rights. -- this is not a 'minor' matter..
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.
No , its not "another matter". Taking away a person’s RKBA for a non-violent act is an unconstitutional infringement, and the judicial pretense about being "narrowly defined" is a simple effort to 'end around' a basic right.
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 Amendmend.
Dream on. Your RKBA's is dying the death of a thousand cuts, while we allow the courts to play word games..
You obviously have no understanding of law.
Your inability to deny the above fact is what's 'obvious'.
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.