Anyone tracking US v Castleman?

[rust collector]

US v Castleman, 12-1371 . Here's the procedural history to date. It's set for argument January 15, 2014. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-castleman/

It's about the Lautenberg Amendment that terminated RKBA for anyone convicted of domestic abuse involving violence. The primary issue in this case is definition of violent act, federal and state. Castleman was peddling guns procured by his wife, apparently in significant quantities. One was involved in a Chicago homicide, and when traced back to Castleman, the scheme became apparent. He was indicted for violating the lifetime ban on possession, but the federal court quashed the indictments because the Tennessee law he had pled guilty to did not require physical violence or force (I'm not being specific with the terms, but trying to give you the gist of the argument). Fed court of appeals upheld the lower court, and upon request of the feds, USSC granted certiorari (which means they agreed to review the case). This only happens to 1.2% of the cases brought to the court. That they would grant cert to an apparent gunrunner when so many police and armed services guys lost their job due to this law, tells me the USSC is ready to send a message.

Anti gun groups are piling on the amicus briefs, and there are few filed to date on Castleman's end of things. Looks like interesting times ahead.

 

[PiratePenguin]

corrected link

 

[JRModel29]

I just read the brief. It was the USSG that requested cert in this case. In fast Castleman fought cert as he wanted the decision of the 6th to stand. I think the USSG thinks this is a good case to firm the Lautenberg Amendment because Castleman sounds like a bad guy. Even with that said, after reading the response by Castleman I think there is a chance the court will affirm the 6th's decision. The argument that a "simple touch" qualifies as a MCDV is crazy and I think the court will see it the same way. I think this goes 4/4 which is a win for Castleman (tie goes to the respondent). Kagan is withdrawn as she was the former USSG. It would be very hard to believe that a non violent act could be considered violence as described in a MCDV.

 

[gc70]

This case does not appear to involve an attempt to expand the scope of the Lautenberg Amendment, but to salvage the bulk of its existing scope from adverse circuit court decisions.

The impetus for the Solicitor General's appeal is bluntly stated:

The decisions below, if applied nationwide, would render Section 922(g)(9) a virtual “dead letter” in all but (at most) a handful of States “from the very moment of its enactment.”

 

[JRModel29]

I have no doubt you are right. While I do not have a dog in this fight it would seem to me that the court would need to affirm the 6th if Johnson v US means anything in terms of defining the use of physical force. It may be that the court reverses the 6th but further defines the use of physical force and in doing so narrows the definition to avoid non violent crimes such as "offensive touching". Again, it seems wrong that non violent crimes can be classified as MCDV and thus result in the life long loss of ones Second Amendment rights.