Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

[jtmckinney]

Ran across this when browzing Yahoo this morning.
<< http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-could-end-domestic-violence-gun-ban-190543511.html >>

Media has been giving a lot of subtle anti gun messages. What this case has to do with a so called sniper rifle in the picture is an example.

Is this a case "cherry picked" by the anti gun administration we have in office?

It say's the supreem court agreed to hear it, I wonder what that means.

Since my job didn't get shut down I gotta get ready for work.

Have a great day!
James

 

[TXAZ]

"He who has the lawyers (effectively) makes the rules".
With the bandwidth DoJ has, it would be pretty easy to cherrypick as you noted.
But as seen in a recent very large mandate / tax, who knows how the court will rule.


"...subtle anti gun messages"???? I'd argue media has become an overt parrot in this department.

 

[thallub]

IM non lawyer opinion; this is not a good test case. It concerns the interpretation of TN domestic violence law, not federal law.

Hope the lawyers here can add something.

In 2001, Castleman pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault (TN Code 39-13-111(b) under an indictment that asserted that he “did intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to [the mother of his child].” Seven years later, federal agents discovered that Castleman and his wife were buying firearms from dealers and selling them on the black market. Under the scheme, Castleman’s wife purchased firearms, allegedly lied on federal firearms paperwork by stating that she was the actual buyer of the firearms, and turned the firearms over to her husband, who was legally prohibited from purchasing firearms because of his domestic assault conviction. Castleman was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm after being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). The district court dismissed those counts, reasoning that Castleman’s misdemeanor domestic assault conviction did not qualify as a domestic violence crime requiring the “use or attempted use of physical force.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Tennessee assault statute does not define “serious bodily injury” to require any particular degree of contact.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/10-5912/10-5912-2012-09-19.html

 

[Patriot86]

In 2001, Castleman pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault (TN Code 39-13-111(b) under an indictment that asserted that he “did intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to [the mother of his child].” Seven years later, federal agents discovered that Castleman and his wife were buying firearms from dealers and selling them on the black market. Under the scheme, Castleman’s wife purchased firearms, allegedly lied on federal firearms paperwork by stating that she was the actual buyer of the firearms, and turned the firearms over to her husband, who was legally prohibited from purchasing firearms because of his domestic assault conviction.

Huh? Black Market? So he had his wife allegedly buy the firearms for him to get around federal law...they allege he was "selling them on the black market" but where is the proof of that? Where are the charges if he was doing such? Why is this guy selling the firearms his wife purchased not mentioned anywhere else in the case?

It sounds like an investigation that went bad so all they had to stick him with were the lesser charges.

I am sort of torn on this; while I believe real domestic abusers should not have the right to own firearms the same as violent felons, I also know that false claims of domestic abuse are often leveled during messy divorces and common legal practice is to advise you plead guilty to a lesser charge, get a slap on the wrists (Fine, Probation) and move on with your life rather than risk serious jail time and a felony.

 

[Al Norris]

The full decision may be downloaded (or viewed) at the link provided by thallub. The portal into PACER can be found at, USA v. James Castleman :: Justia Dockets & Filings, if anyone wants to find the rest of the pleadings before the 6th Circuit.

The question before the [Supreme] Court is whether or not the TN statute in question (the original 2001 conviction) meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), such that Castleman became a prohibited person. The district court and the CA6 panel have now held that it does not. The Court has agreed to answer the following question:

Section 922(g)(9) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime for any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to possess a firearm. The phrase "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" is defined to include any federal, state, or tribal misdemeanor offense, committed by a person with a specified domestic relationship to the victim, that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon." 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A).

The question presented is: Whether respondent's Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child qualifies as a conviction for a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

The SCOTUS docket entry is here: Docket for 12-1371

Merits briefings, when they are filed, may be found here: MERITS BRIEFS

This case has the potential to restrict or expand the meaning of of the amount of "violent force," as it is used in the Federal Statute.

 

[Al Norris]

I would also add that you can read the Governments petition and the response over at SCOTUSblog: United States v. Castleman : SCOTUSblog (thanks to Bartholomew Roberts post at THR for this link).

 

[Tom Servo]

I have honestly never heard of this case. It seems to be a question of semantics when it comes to the phrase "use of physical force."

If I'm reading it correctly, Tennessee's domestic violence doesn't require "violent force" to get a conviction, and therefore the lower court found that the Castleman's conviction didn't bar him from owning firearms.

This is an odd one.

 

[JERRYS.]

I don't ever see the SCOTUS striking down the only misdemeanor that strips away a constitutional right; they might in fact be more inclined to add more.

 

[press1280]

The case is either denied/granted cert by members of SCOTUS, no cherry picking by the administration accomplishes this. It will be interesting but I'm looking toward October 15th and Woollard, not Castleman.

 

[Tom Servo]

It will be interesting but I'm looking toward October 15th and Woollard, not Castleman.

Same here. I'm really hoping Woollard doesn't fall by the wayside because the Court chooses to hear only one 2A case this time around.

 

[jtmckinney]

When I said cherry picking I was talking about a section in the artical

( But the Obama administration, in its challege to the appeals court ruling, wrote in a court petition that the ruling, if allowed to stand, would render the law "largely inoperative," since various US states have differing definitions for what constitutes domestic violence.

The court is to hear arguments in the case next January. )

Maybe this was one of many they appealed to SCOTUS but I am thinking they would not appeal a case to SCOTUS that they thought would not get a ruling in their favor.

And that SCOTUS would hear a case that from what was in the artical and other reports was this messy got me thinking there was maybe something going on.

Have a great day!
James

 

[Al Norris]

This is not a 2A case, although it may very well affect certain misdemeanants. This is fundamentally a criminal prosecution.

What is at stake is how broadly or narrow the court will interpret "domestic violence" in § 922(g)(9).

The case was granted cert for 2 specific reasons. Firstly, there is a definite circuit split on the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Secondly, it was the US Government that petitioned the Court for cert.

I fully expect that the "Law and Order" Justices, on the Court, will attempt to broaden the interpretation. I will be shocked if the outcome is any good for Enos, a CA case at the 9th.

 

[44 AMP]

real domestic abusers should not have the right to own firearms the same as violent felons,

I realize I'm likely beating a dead horse, splitting hairs, and some other things as well, but here goes...


I disagree with the distinction between "real domestic abusers" and "violent felons". I have, and always have had a disagreement with the Lautenberg law, (and those like it) on several specific points and in overall presumptions.
(and happy to discuss details in a different thread)

In this case, based only on what has been posted, I am in agreement that it appears that they couldn't support the charge of dealing guns on the black market, and charged him with felon in possession, because of the domestic violence conviction.

Further information could change my opinion.

Right now, I would not consider this case to be a good one to make a "poster boy" case.