FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 03/26/2014 12:30:59 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
WASHINGTON (AP) -- People convicted of minor domestic violence offenses can be barred from possessing guns even in states where no proof of physical violence is required to support the domestic violence charge, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The ruling was a victory for the Obama administration, gun control groups and advocates for victims of domestic abusers who say the gun ban is critical in preventing the escalation of domestic violence.
The justices unanimously rejected the argument put forth by gun rights groups and a Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault against the mother of his child in 2001. The man, James Castleman, was then charged in 2009 with illegal possession of a firearm after he and his wife were accused of buying guns and selling them on the black market.
Federal law bars a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence involving the use of physical force or a deadly weapon from possessing a firearm.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
only about a half a dozen more reasons to ban, and we’ll be great Britain.
Even with my first wife, I was never a “hitter”. But “physical force” could be pretty broadly defined to include the action of husbands AND wives in most marriages at one time or another, especially in their younger years.
My ex pushed me so hard in the chest once tht she fell backwards on her butt. If that had been on camera and I had pressed misdemeaner domestic abuse charges and she was convicted, she could never own a gun.
But maybe this involves more serious physical force.
The Court's opinion is getting to be irrelevant.
Next will be a ban on persons convicted (or plea bargaining) to any misdemeanor.
The defendant's misdemeanor conviction was under a Tennessee law which required "physical harm" to the victim, which was why even Scalia (who reads the federal statute more narrowly than the majority) was OK with saying he can't possess a gun. What surprised me was the Alito-Thomas concurrence, which says even a slap would be enough. But they tend to read statutes literally.
The only justice you find today is the justice you make for yourself.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Moving towards a banana republic every day.....
I decided long ago that I WILL own guns no matter what laws the government may pass or what the Supreme Court rules constitutional... and by the look of the 85% of Connecticut so called “assault” weapon owners who ignored the registration laws, I’m far from alone...
If I am on a jury and charges based on federal or state gun control laws are at issue - I will never find enough evidence presented for a guilty vote. And, yes I will look the judge in the eye and tell I will follow the law as he claims it is.
It doesn’t get much easier than this kind of misdemeanor, to take away a persons freedom forever, and people know it, and use it in arguments.
Many gun owners and concealed carry people are finding themselves being forced into passivity even in casual arguments, people know that a simple phone call can bring down on your head, the biggest and darkest events of your entire life.
“But maybe this involves more serious physical force.”
Actually, I think the court said the exact opposite: “no proof of physical violence is required to support the domestic violence charge”
So, it appears a mere allegation is enough.
If there’s a victory here it’s a capital “V” Victory against becoming involved in any domestic relationship. People who argued this case might well have wished they made this a larger point.
Remember that quaint bit of crap about sanctity of marriage, a special relationship, in which spouses couldn’t be compelled to testify against each other because of the importance of family. It seems special isn’t so special anymore.
Yet another reason why young men should never marry. Ever.
The law is so grossly stacked against men by “feminists” that the only prudent course of action is to boycott marriage and the legal snares that women’s groups have created for men.
If this is just a Federal law, it doesn’t mean anything. The Obama administration says that Federal laws are not valid if you don’t like them. Today we march, tomorrow we vote.
Exactly.
And as a result, my advice to young men is to not allow a woman to so much as move a toothbrush into your bathroom. When she comes over to spend the night, make sure she leaves with all her crap in the morning.
If she protests, tell her that’s how all the women on the roster get treated.
So all liberals have to do is get the list of homes owned by registered gun owners, make up some excuse purporting some kind of "attack" and then the gun owner loses his right to own guns. Where, again, is this stipulated in the Constitution?
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.