Supreme Court rules domestic abusers can lose gun ownership rights

Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Click to expand...

Well, those are two judges that rarely find themselves on the same side. Interesting.

Domestic abuse is the only misdemeanor where you can lose 2A rights. It has been on the 4473 as line i for quite some time. I don't want someone with a history of beating their wife (or husband) to get a firearm and finish the job one day.

Jeff H said:

Well, those are two judges that rarely find themselves on the same side. Interesting.

Click to expand...

For those of us following the court (the best way is to read Eugene Volokh's blog) there have been a number of unusual combinations that don't match the usual conservative/liberal or structuralist/functionalist divisions in the last two years.

Mike

Does the police still require no proof outside of the woman saying you did it to arrest you for domestic abuse?

Domestic abuse is the only misdemeanor where you can lose 2A rights. It has been on the 4473 as line i for quite some time. I don't want someone with a history of beating their wife (or husband) to get a firearm and finish the job one day.

Click to expand...

If the alleged abuse doesn't rise to the level of a felony, are they really dangerous? One could easily think of circumstances where someone may end up charged with DV without being a continuing threat. For example, say a woman attempts to assault her husband and he, in self defense, holds her by the wrists to prevent being struck. There are no witnesses to the attack, but when the police arrive, the woman has marks on her wrists and claims that the man attacked her. The man is going to be arrested, and possibly convicted. Is it reasonable that he should lose a fundamental right for the rest of his life in such a case? I wouldn't think so, but the Supreme Court apparently disagrees.

Secondly, the truly vile abusers aren't going to be deterred by a gun control law anyway.

Lastly, domestic violence is currently the only misdemeanor disqualifying someone from a basic constitutional right. What makes you think that the gun control crowd doesn't want to expand that list, based on this precedent?

JN01 said:

...domestic violence is currently the only misdemeanor disqualifying someone from a basic constitutional right. What makes you think that the gun control crowd doesn't want to expand that list, based on this precedent?

Click to expand...

It's also the only constitutional right that can be revoked for an offense that occurred BEFORE the misdemeanor conviction = no guns law was passed.

The anti gun crowd may try to get additional misdemeanors on the list, but the current leading edge is to revoke gun rights based on suspicions too weak to justify an arrest, much less a conviction.

The constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment itself was not at issue in this case. Rather, the issue was whether or not specific criminal intent was a required element of the domestic violence conviction, for the Lautenberg gun disqualification to apply. The court held that it wasn't, and that proof of reckless behavior, as an element in the domestic violence crime, was enough to disqualify. (At least, that is my understanding of the case. I will gladly stand corrected if anybody knows differently.)

Remember, a mere arrest for domestic violence is not enough to trigger a Lautenberg disqualification. There has to be a conviction. This is important, because many such cases are resolved short of an actual conviction, for example, through deferred adjudication pending a period of good behavior. This is especially true of first offenses.

Today, any savvy lawyer, knowing the consequences of a DV conviction, will do everything he can to get his client such an alternative resolution. This was not true before the Lautenberg Amendment was enacted. Lawyers would recommend to their clients that they plead guilty just to get the matter behind them, and many would do so. Now they are faced with a lifetime of being barred from gun possession. This is way more than they bargained for.

This current case was probably a weak one with which to test Lautenberg. The result is not really surprising.

When Lautenberg first hit the news, I had two reactions: (a) to assert that loss of RKBA should be limited to violent felony offenses, and (b) to wonder since domestic violence would be felony aggravated assault if the victim was a stranger, why is it treated as a misdemeanor?

And did anyone else catch campaigner Hillary saying (this year!) people who commit misdemeanor DV should lose their RKBA for ten years?

And did anyone else catch campaigner Hillary saying (this year!) people who commit misdemeanor DV should lose their RKBA for ten years?

Click to expand...

That would be additional categories of "DV," such as stalking. DV misdemeanors, as currently defined, would still be a lifetime disqualification.

The gun-grabbers would never make restrictions less onerous. Their whole strategy is to make restrictions more and more onerous.

^ Conviction on misdemeanor DV requires a level of due process. Some of those other things require only an accusation with no proof.

Of course the key to the Controllers is that nobody is going to speak up for somebody being mean to his wife, even if it does not rise to the level of a felony.

" Both men argued that they were not subject to §922(g)(9)’s prohibition because their prior convictions could have been based on reckless, rather than knowing or intentional, conduct and thus did not quality as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. "

But "Petitioner Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend.... Petitioner William Armstrong pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife ...." Sounds to me like they pled guilty to knowing or intentional use of force assaulting their significant others. The Maine law could have applied to recklessly causing bodily harm. But they did not plead to recklessly causing bodily harm inintentionally or unknowingly. If I read that right, they pled to assaulting.

They appealed it "could have been" been one thing under the Maine law that was not what the Lautenberg amendment intended to address when it actually was something under the Maine law that was what Lautenberg intended to address. Assaulting an S.O. and pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence.

I don't think this decision really changes anything. It was not a good test of the Lautenberg amendment.

I am not sure it made clear whether recklessly but unintentionally and unknowingly causing physical harm under Maine law constitutes a crime of violence or use of force as intended in Lautenberg, as the dissent of Thomas and Sotomyer seems to imply.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf

As others have pointed out, it's not quite as alarming as you might think. They had already been convicted of the DV, but were arguing that because under Maine law a misdemeanor could also include reckless injury, and that reckless is not the same as "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (as in how it appears on a 4473) because a "crime of domestic violence" is defined as involving the "use of physical force."

In lay-men's terms they are trying to argue that they did not "use" force on their domestic partners because they had only recklessly "caused" the injury. The court by affirming the decision is basically saying that state laws (or specifically Maine) that include "reckless" acts in their DV laws would still bar that convicted person from possessing a gun.

You may not agree that a misdemeanor should take away your rights, but the burden of proof nor the conviction process has been changed by this decision.

Please correct any errors I have in my understanding.

Hanzo581 said:

Does the police still require no proof outside of the woman saying you did it to arrest you for domestic abuse?

Click to expand...

Yes, there must be physical proof that domestic violence (an assault or battery) occurred. Not just he said she said. Witnesses, photos etc.

Personally, I agree with this ruling. Too many LEO's have died at domestics!

NMPOPS said:

Yes, there must be physical proof that domestic violence (an assault or battery) occurred. Not just he said she said. Witnesses, photos etc.

Personally, I agree with this ruling. Too many LEO's have died at domestics!

Click to expand...

You are WAY OFF. I don't know about other states, but no, it all boils down to who a judge believes. Any woman can file a complaint, the man will have his day in court, and the judge will decide who he/she believes. There does not have to be any smoking gun proof. In Virginia, anyone woman or person can go down to the magistrates office or police station, file a sworn complaint, and the magistrate can then issue a warrant right there on the spot. While the arrest warrant is active, you would not be able to buy a gun from a FFL. When the warrant is served, you will be arrested and taken to a magistrate who may or may not grant bail until the arraignment, so you may sit jail for a few days. At the arraignment, the just can throw the case out or set a trail date. Unless it's clearly obvious that the woman is lying, a date is usually set. Depending on the seriousness of the claims and whether he considers you a flight risk, the judge could revoke bond until the trail date. When you appear in court, it IS a he said vs she said.

There's this case, for one example, and many others that I know of, where A VA boy was falsely convinced of rape years after the fact. There wasn't any photos, rape kit, witnesses, or real proof other than a he said she said. The boy served 4 years in prison, and was only released because, in this case, his accuser had a conscious.

I personally have had to deal with false allegations, so I know the process. I've spoken with and read about other men who had to deal with false allegations and convictions. You are misinformed about how the system works. There's how it's supposed to work and how it actually works are two completely different things.

Praxide speaks the truth... as a LEO myself and having worked this, it is going to depend heavily on the evidence presented at the time of questioning... generally speaking, crimes of domestic violence are a no-option arrest... in other words, if PC exists that DV existed, an arrest has to be made. As for establishing proof... it will depend very heavily on the statements made.

Having gone to court for and successfully convicted a person of DV based on verbal statements (and an admission by the guilty party) it IS possible to do, just very unlikely.

Knowing the county attorney (Prosecutor in layterms) and what she wants to push cases through, the county attorney needs more than just he said she said to actually charge someone... an admission, witness statements, etc. There may be no physical evidence but the CA would like to see it if it exists.

@Frank Ettin - Just an FYI, PC is required for an arrest as a minimum. Warrants do not get issued for Reasonable Articulable Suspicion and I can't think of a single crime where RAS would allow for an arrest. Also the COTUS and SCOTUS have defined what Probable Cause is. The states may mirror those decisions, but it was the Constitution that used the language and defined the term. SCOTUS has clarified and redefined, but PC is established by the Federal Government, not state governments. The States may have laws that mirror that, but to meet the threshold of PC is one defined by the Constitution.

@JN01 - For your information, if I punch you in the stomach a couple of times, that's a violent act, but in some states that is only a misdemeanor (Nebraska being one of them). Interestingly enough 3rd Degree Assault (lowest form of assault) doesn't even require pain to be considered an assault.... mere threatened violence can be considered a 3rd Degree Assault. In the Nebraska Revised Statutes, this is called "Assault Menacing in the 3rd Degree" and is located under the 3rd Degree Assault statute... still a misdemeanor.

So yes, being convicted of a misdemeanor domestic assault CAN be violent in nature and having been on the "front lines" of many of those conflicts myself, I can tell you that many are on going issues. Domestic Abuse situations are exceedingly difficult to prosecute and successfully separate the involved parties. I can't tell you the number of times we got called to houses were two parties get back together after they are forced apart via law enforcement involvement... heck... there are times when the abused bails out the abuser out of fear of retribution and further abuse. I have a standard set of cards I hand out to domestic abuse victims... they list all of the shelters that they can contact in the area... they call the number, they are shuttled off to any number of not publicly listed shelters... but I can't force the victim to do such... I've even worked domestics where one party nearly killed the other to have the victim not only bail them out, but drop the charges...

So yeah... I don't particularly see the argument that just because it was a misdemeanor, doesn't mean it isn't a valid issue. I also strongly agree with the fact that this has most likely saved many lives over the years in such a manner as to deem this a valid restriction on the rights of an individual. Also, I do believe that there should be a process in which those people can gain restoration of their rights...