SCOTUS rules that you lose your gun rights after misd domestic - US v. Castleman

[Jeff White]

I hate to say it, because I hate the law. You don't lose your 2A rights if you are convicted of misdemeanor battery for a bar fight, but you are if you are convicted of domestic battery. But I agree with the decision. He did plead guilty to "intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury". That is battery. That is domestic violence.

I don't know how they do it in TN, but I've been to court a lot here in the course of my employment and I've listened to plenty of guilty pleas. In every case, before the judge accepts the plea, the judge explains every downside of the plea, the rights the defendant gives up, the statement of fact of the case that by pleading guilty the defendant is admitting to, the limited amount of time the defendant has to file an appeal to change the plea, the possible sentence and that would include the loss of firearm rights. The defendant has to tell the judge that he understands all of this and still agrees to the plea. Then the judge accepts the plea.

So even if the defense attorney didn't explain all of this, the judge would have. I'm shocked that the lower courts disagreed.

This was a terrible case to take to the USSC.


Reading Justice Scalia's concurrence it is quite obvious that if we want to win this particular fight we need to take it to the state legislatures and have the laws on domestic violence changed so that they do not lump non-violent conduct in with violent conduct.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1371_6b35.pdf

 

[itsa pain]

"Restraining orders and DV allegations are favorite tools of disgruntled spouses and significant others (typically filed by women against men) to gain leverage, harass, and gain child custody and property rights. They are free and easy and akin to a nuclear weapon with total destruction. Once accused, it's very hard to clear your name and costs a lot of money."

Case in point the other "test case" of that dude in DC with the shotgun shell . It all began with a verbal accusation...

""Because Castleman's indictment makes clear that physical force was an element of his conviction, that conviction qualifies as a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,'" Sotomayor said."
Wait, so "force equals violence" and therefore Castleman's conviction stands (debatable, but whatever), therefore the statutes where "non-force can equal violence" stand? What I'm asking, is are they upholding Lautenberg only in circumstances where physical force is an element of the DV conviction? Or are they using physical force to prove his conviction was for "domestic violence?" Because I'm pretty sure the court record already states that, so what does physical force have to do with the ruling unless it is to narrow the scope of the Lautenberg condition in locales with the lower violence threshold? Sounds remarkably like a self-referential argument to me (perfect for arriving at a foregone conclusion )

"The Obama administration had argued that the lower court decisions would effectively nullify the gun ban in dozens of states where misdemeanor domestic violence laws don't specify the degree of force needed for conviction. That would frustrate the intent of Congress, the administration argued, which was to keep firearms away from anyone found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence."

And here we see the true perversion of the Lautenberg travesty; it was never intended to keep firearms away from individuals who would use force against others --merely this nebulous "violence" people seem extremely reluctant to define in real terms, and which has a shockingly low burden of proof in many instances (especially considering the mounting ramifications that follow it). The 2nd amendment is hardly an inalienable right if you lose it the instant "someone" thinks you should, and tattles

"What a slippery slope we've been on since 1968."
We've been on a slippery slope since 3100BC. It took work and dedication to work our way up the hill, and laziness brings us inexorably back down.

TCB

I do not believe there were any gun laws in 3100 BC. I do not understand the comparison to 1968

 

[El Tejon]

Mr. Hardy on the decision:

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2014/03/castleman_decis.php#comments

 

[CatManDo]

Someone's going to have to `splain to me how domestic violence can to attributed
to a situation where no force (much less actual violence) can be shown.

Does speaking sharply to someone now get you a conviction for violence ?
Does hurting someone's feelings get you convicted for violence ?

Help me to understand, for I see high potential for endless legal mischief under the covers here.

To answer your questions:
1. Yes
2. Yes

SCOTUS sold the Constitution down the drain with Obamacare, everything else is just collateral damage.

 

[barnbwt]

"if we want to win this particular fight we need to take it to the state legislatures and have the laws on domestic violence changed so that they do not lump non-violent conduct in with violent conduct"

You know, the more I think about it, I tend to agree; this ability to discern violence/non-violence is really an authority you want residing in locally-accountable officialdoms, rather than in a far away place with a different world view. It's also not often that a federal ruling ends with basic moral authority like this being tossed back to the states' responsibilities, so I guess I'll take it where I can get it . Whether they'd ruled "force is always violence" or "force is not necessarily violent," it would have caused all sorts of unintended ramifications for this area of law.

TCB

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it is quite obvious that if we want to win this particular fight we need to take it to the state legislatures and have the laws on domestic violence changed so that they do not lump non-violent conduct in with violent conduct...

Yes, sometimes it really will be up to the legislature.

It's not the role of a court to decide if the result is good or bad. It's the job of a court to apply the the law and applicable precedent to decide the case. The result of applying the law and precedent can in fact be unsatisfactory to you.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.

We could think that a law is a bad idea or bad public policy, and that law could be entirely within the power of Congress to enact and perfectly constitutional. Being constitutional does not guarantee that a law is a good thing.

On the other hand, it's not necessary to legislate at the outer-reaches of constitutionality. We could work at electing thoughtful legislators who will exercise some restraint.

Yes, that sounds very much like a fantasy, but things like that have happened -- checks and balances at work. Not long ago there was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically involving the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result (a very broad interpretation of "public use") was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

 

[barnbwt]

Sometimes courts actually are wrong, though; case in point being the infamous "Scopes' Shotgun-Shell Trial" recently ended in DC (ending in a bogus token 50$ penalty for the defendant, not unlike Scopes' ). I wholeheartedly agree this was a terrible case, which is doubtless why it made its way past much better ones to the SCOTUS.

" We could work at electing thoughtful legislators who will exercise some restraint.

Yes, that sounds very much like a fantasy, but things like that have happened..."
It's already happening; we have the 'least productive' congress in history now. They're finally burning all their furious energies out on each other, rather than us! If we can only get the 'domestic disturbance' to spread from the legislature to the other two branches and get them thus occupied, we civilians could have all our troubles managed in a fortnight!

TCB

 

[MEHavey]

It was not the $50 penalty, it was the requirement to register as
a "Firearms Offender" in DC that's the problem.

If you read the actual story (HERE) you will also discover that both
the judge and the Districts's AAG are absolute morons. The transcript
of these four hours should become a case study for law classes.

 

[barnbwt]

If you read the actual story (HERE) you will also discover that both
the judge and the Districts's AAG are absolute morons. The transcript
of these four hours should become a case study for law classes.

Exactly; just like the Scopes' Monkey Trial

TCB