U.S. Supreme Court to hear Mainers’ appeal on gun ban for domestic violence convictio

[Aim1]

Why can't the SCOTUS take a case involving carry outside the home or ownership of ARs? (I thought that Scalia and Thomas recently pushed for them to hear one of these cases but didn't get the votes.....iirc)


And I thought SCOTUS already ruled on this and said that the Lautenburg amendment was Constitutional. Or am I wrong on his case?






http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/267061-supreme-court-to-weigh-in-on-gun-violence

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Mainers’ appeal on gun ban for domestic violence convictions

NEWS Posted October 30, 2015 Updated October 31, 2015

In a case that will hinge on intent, a lawyer for the two men will argue that their guilty pleas for hitting their partners shouldn't bar them from owning guns.

Two Maine men who pleaded guilty to domestic violence and later were found to possess guns said a federal law barring gun ownership by convicts shouldn’t apply to them because their conduct was reckless and not intentional.

 

[lilguy]

They gave us a positive on RTKBA but gave the govt reasonable controls. A ban of or considering an AR a protected arm is a bridge to far for them at this point.
I think the battle for controls are going to revert to the states from this point on.
Ballot initiatives are the new threat to gun rights.

 

[Aim1]

Positive RTKBA outside of the home?

 

[alsaqr]

i goofed: Cited wrong case and deleted same.

In the Supreme Court case, the lawyer for Voisine and Armstrong is arguing that the federal gun ban for domestic abusers was designed to apply to people who intended to harm their partners and had caused serious injury, and should not apply to those who get carried away in the heat of a dispute and do not seriously hurt their partners.

.......................................................................................................................................

The petitioners have argued that if the Lautenberg Amendment is not to unconstitutionally infringe on Second Amendment rights, it can not apply to reckless domestic abuse that does not cause serious injury. But the court will not consider the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment as a whole, instead only seeking to answer whether the domestic abuse gun ban should apply to impulsive abusers. If the Justices agree with Voisine and Armstrong, it would narrow the kinds of state domestic violence convictions that prevent abusers from getting a gun.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/supreme-court-domestic-violence-misdemeanor-voisine-armstrong/

 

[barnbwt]

"Impulsive" does not equal "reckless," TheTrace.

Oddly enough, I can't find myself sympathizing for once. Who cares how or why your actions caused harm to another? Either by intent or by reckless disregard you caused injury* and you should reap the punishment, so as to dissuade a repeat by yourself or others. Seems very clear, so I'd like to hear why this point of contention is so...contentious. The ill feelings I at least have here stem from the overreach of Lautenberg, the double standard and abuse of DV 'cure alls,' and our society's inability to either re-integrate criminals or punish them sufficiently/properly for crimes that actually deserve punishment. None of these tough issues are on the table, however.

*That's a different debate altogether, as is the injustice of Lautenberg

 

[RPRNY]

Given Mainiacs passion for vast quantities of meth and Dr McGillicuddy' s coffee brandy (aka "panty remover"), it's hard to believe there are more than a handful of legal gun owners over 10yo in the State...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Why can't the SCOTUS take a case involving carry outside the home or ownership of ARs?

We'll never know unless the Court tells us. Guesses are useless.

But in any case, there's really nothing to discuss at this point. At least no one seems interested in discussing what the case is actually about.

Perhaps when the initial briefs on each side are filed someone will be good enough to start a thread and post links to the briefs so we can actually discuss the case.