High Court looking at Federal Gun ban...

[44 AMP]

MSN news is reporting the Supreme court is hearing arguments about the Federal misdemeanor domestic violence gun ban.

Sadly, the court is NOT looking at whether the law is constitutional, but what level of force qualifies as domestic violence under that law.

Personally, I have always felt that no misdemeanor conviction (no matter what) should have the power to strip one of a constitutionally enumerated right. Period.

IF the offense is serious enough to have that level of penalty, then it should NOT be a misdemeanor. If the offense does not rise to the level of a felony, then punishment should NOT include permanent loss of a civil right.

But that isn't what the High Court is looking at. At this time, lifetime loss of rights for misdemeanor domestic violence is an established fact, and the Supreme Court is doing nothing (at this time) to change, or even review that.

What they are looking at, according the news is what level of violence meets the language of the statute. The Fed prosecutor (again, according to the report) is arguing that even touching is sufficient for the law to apply and a conviction to be made, while the other side is arguing the language of the law, which includes the terms "serious injury" among others.

There is a lot more to it, of course, but I thought it a likely subject for discussion, and worthy of a heads up to see what our high court does, this time...

Thoughts?

 

[gc70]

The Castleman cases involves a discussion of the level of force involved in a "crime of domestic violence" because that is the issue presented by the Tennessee law that the Supreme Court is considering. However, I think the issue of "violence" in the Lautenberg Amendment is broader.

A person can be convicted under North Carolina General Statutes § 50B - Domestic Violence for harassment or stalking, without committing, or even threatening, an act involving violence or force. I suspect that anyone convicted of NCGS § 50B is now reported as a domestic violence offender -based on the way the state law is titled and written- without regard to whether the offense did or did not involve force or violence.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sadly, the court is NOT looking at whether the law is constitutional, but what level of force qualifies as domestic violence under that law.

The Supreme Court considers the question that is brought before it.

For example, in Heller they ruled on having to disassemble a firearm before you could keep it in the home. Obviously, the Second Amendment is broader than that, covers outside the home as well as inside, and covers carry ("bear") as well as "keep" -- but the question asked in Heller was limited to keeping firearms in the home, so that's what they answered.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

A person can be convicted under North Carolina General Statutes § 50B - Domestic Violence for harassment or stalking, without committing, or even threatening, an act involving violence or force.

Same here in Ohio. Physical restraint can get you arrested for DV especially if the person being restrained has any marks and you have no witnesses to back up your claim that the restraint was to protect yourself. Better have a good lawyer!

My understanding was that here in Oh that all DV is a felony, I was wrong, there are some DV violations that are Misdemeanors. A verbal threat is DV, which I knew but not to what degree. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2919.25

Under Ohio law you cannot get a CCW if you have a misdemeanor DV offense already http://sheriff.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/concealed-carry-information.aspx Even your record as a minor can be used to prevent CCW Permits

2. If applicant has been CONVICTED or has been adjudicated a delinquent child under the following offenses:
o Any felony
o Resisting arrest
o Assault on a peace officer
o Including conspiracy, complicity, or attempt to commit any of the above offenses

3. If applicant has been convicted or has been adjudicated a delinquent child under the following offenses within 3 years:
o A misdemeanor offense of violence
o Assault (903.13)
o Aggravated Menacing (2903.21)
o Menacing by Stalking (2903.21.1)
o Menacing (2903.22)
o Arson (2909.03)
o Riot (2917.03)
o Domestic Violence (2919.25)
o Endangering Children (2919.22)
o Intimidation Victim/Witness (2921.04)
o Escape (2919.22)
o Discharge of Firearm at or into habitation or school safety zone (2923.16.1)

Note: Multiple DV's are a felony here as well.

 

[Al Norris]

If you want to read up on this case, try SCOTUSblog, here: United States v. Castleman : SCOTUSblog

A transcript of yesterdays oral arguments are here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1371_2cp3.pdf

 

[gc70]

Thanks for the link to the transcript, Al. The oral arguments were very interesting.

I was a bit surprised that Justice Kagan declared "I'm assuming that the Court will say physical touching goes too far, that that's not included under 922."

 

[NH_Pilot]

For the legally untrained out here, could one of the experts here suggest what might happen if the court determines that the federal statute's reliance on the many different state definitions of "domestic violence is flawed and the feds must somehow set a threshold of violence that is part of the crime?

Will the Feds have to start over and establish a standard for how each of the 50 states matches the federal standard? Will the question on the 4473 form have to change?

Thanks!

Wes