SCOTUS accepts case on Lautenberg Amendment

[KyJim]

Friday the Supreme Court agreed to review the merits of two cases (one joint petition) involving the Lautenberg Amendment. That law is the one which disqualifies someone convicted of misdemeanor "domestic violence" from owning firearms for a lifetime. Scotus Blog describes the issue as follows:

Both men allege that their convictions under Maine law for simple assault and misdemeanor domestic violence assault, respectively, do not automatically qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for purposes of the federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), because both provisions of Maine law can be violated by conduct that is merely reckless, rather than intentional.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/10/court-grants-review-in-firearm-possession-case/

The court declined to grant cert on the second issue --- whether the ban violates the Second Amendment. I glanced very quickly at the cert petition. Truthfully, it doesn't make for the easiest reading, even for a lawyer. Maybe I was just tired.

In any event, I'm hopeful SCOTUS will chip away a bit at Lautenberg.

 

[leadcounsel]

Lautenberg is a poorly written feel-good law, depriving folks of an important right.

I have not read the case. But sadly there are at least 4 automatic votes in favor of Lautenberg on the Court. I'm less-than-optimistic.

But Lautenberg should be overturned as a whole.

If an assault is serious, it should be a felony. If not, then it should not impact gun rights any more than rights to own other "dangerous" items.

Murders are committed with cars, knives, fire, you name it. Shall we ban the ownership of gasoline and matches too?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If an assault is serious, it should be a felony. If not, then it should not impact gun rights any more than rights to own other "dangerous" items.

Especially when the "assault" may be nothing more than harsh words.

 

[doofus47]

Well, this is the era of "reviewing the overly harsh justice system"....
We can hope.

 

[62coltnavy]

An "assault", as defined in the criminal law, is not simply "harsh words," but instead requires a threat of immediate harmful physical contact. Raising one's fist is usually an assault, absent words or other conduct establishing that the threat is conditional. Throwing dishes, etc., but missing, is an assault. An actual physical contact is a battery.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

An "assault", as defined in the criminal law, is not simply "harsh words,"

Unless there is a statute defining "harsh words" as an assault.

 

[62coltnavy]

Doubtful that "harsh words" constitute an assault, but may--likely--constitute hate speech in appropriate circumstances (e.g racial epithets). The traditional definition of assault, if I remember correctly, goes back the the English common law. The distinction between simple assault and aggravated assault is whether or not you are armed with a (broadly defined)"weapon".