supreme court will decide on re-arming domestic abusers

[niyad]

(domestic violence is only a misdemeanor, nothing to see here)


Supreme Court Will Decide on Re-Arming Domestic Abusers

For a domestic violence victim, whether her partner owns a gun can be the difference
between life and death. One in four women in the United States experiences domestic violence in her lifetime, and these women are five times more likely [PDF] to be murdered when their intimate partners own a firearm. Putting a gun in the hands of an abuser is not only irresponsible; it literally risks the lives of countless women across the nation.

Given the dual epidemics of gun violence and violence against women in this country, we should be working to strengthen laws that prevent convicted criminals from accessing deadly firearms. Yesterday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Castleman, a case that could limit the effectiveness of the federal gun ban and place domestic violence victims further at risk.

In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban—also known as the Lautenberg Amendment after its chief sponsor and advocate, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)—to prohibt any individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from owning a gun. A host of women’s rights groups, including the Feminist Majority, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (then led by current Rep. Donna Edwards [D-Md.]), and the National Organization for Women, fought hard for the law, originally facing opposition from law enforcement and military groups who feared the ban would force out officers by prohibiting those convicted of domestic violence crimes from possessing guns.

The purpose of the law, however, was, as Sen. Lautenberg reminded his colleagues on the Senate floor, to “save the life of the ordinary American woman.”
The Senator was not engaging in hyperbole. Several studies have shown that gun ownership increases the likelihood that a woman will be killed during a domestic violence incident, and the risk of death is higher when there has already been a previous incident of domestic violence. The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban is a simple, common-sense measure that helps protect women from being murdered.

At issue in Castleman, however, is when the gun ban should apply to those who perpetrate domestic violence. The federal law specifies that the gun ban applies to anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal, state or tribal law when the crime includes “the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” The question before the Court now is what counts as “physical force.”

. . . . .

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/01/16/supreme-court-will-decide-on-re-arming-domestic-abusers/

[niyad]

1. . . .

[Demo_Chris]

2. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn this ban. nt

[Wounded Bear]

3. You're probably right...

:sigh: After all, freedom.

[niyad]

5. not to mention, women do not seem to count (witness them discussing the "safe zones" at

clinics and how they impinge on the "free speech" of the anti-choicer protestors (a name which "offends" scalia)

[niyad]

4. think you are probably correct.

[NutmegYankee]

6. I can't see them doing that.

The lower court notwithstanding, it's pretty obvious that domestic assault is using physical force. I sincerely hope I'm not proven wrong.

[Demo_Chris]

7. I suspect (no expert) that the issue will be the permanent loss of rights for a misdemeanor...

For example, what if the GOP Congress passed a law banning anyone with a misdemeanor drug conviction -- say possession of crack -- from ever voting again. I am not even sure that that's Constitutional under ANY circumstances with a misdemeanor. But again, I am no lawyer and definately don't know what the hell I am talking about.

I guess we will see.

[niyad]

11. the fact that domestic abuse is a misdemeanor is pretty disgusting.

[JJChambers]

14. There are degrees

I think there should be misdemeanor domestic crimes -- when, in the heat of a volatile situation, one partner raises a hand in a threatening manner, but then cooler heads prevail without physical violence being done, a crime has certainly been committed -- but a felony? No, I think not.

Causing physical injury in a domestic relationship should be a felony, though.

[Demo_Chris]

17. Think this through all the way. Some domestic abuse SHOULD be a misdemeaner at best. nt

[niyad]

20. do you work with domestic abuse victims? have you seen what happens? I have.

[Demo_Chris]

29. Work with them? No. Seen what can happen? Yes....

And that completely sidesteps what I said.

[niyad]

30. try telling that to the victims I have seen and worked with.

[Demo_Chris]

32. Round them up and I will tell them. They will say "Yeah, no shit."

You really need to take a step back from your poptart looked like a gun silliness on this one.

[niyad]

33. not surprised at your response. now, kindly cite the link where I ever said what you italicized.

keep trying, though. at this point, you are only making yourself look ridiculous. remdi95

[NutmegYankee]

13. No, it's a debate over some minor phrasing in the law.

Most states have a domestic abuse law that is very general in wording. The federal law used a more detailed definition for misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, including language most states don't include as part of the requirement.

It's a case of lawyers behaving as their usual selves and nitpicking the words of a law to death.

[geek tragedy]

39. incorrect. It's whether the conviction must include violence as an element.

In this case, the guy was convicted of causing physical harm, which he's arguing doesn't count because you can cause physical harm in non-violent ways (like cutting brake lines).

[petronius]

9. I don't read it as a question of overturning the Lautenberg Amendment, but

rather a question of who it applies to.

The Lautenberg amendment (from 18 USC 922g) says that:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

...

(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The case seems to relate to the definition of physical force and domestic violence, which is addressed in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33):

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), [2] the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that—
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal [3] law; and
(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

So in my very-very-much-not-a-lawyer opinion, it seems that the question for the USSC is how much "physical force" is required to trigger the ban - were it up to me, the answer would be "very little"...

[geek tragedy]

40. Dream on. nt

[Lunacee_2013]

8. Re-arming domestic abusers?

How did that even come up? Who would vote for such a thing? That makes just as much sense as letting people take their guns into bars! I don't mind people owning guns so they can hunt, or use them for self-protection, but can we please use some common sense? People who have proven themselves to be violent, or mentally ill, or who just can't seem to stay out of trouble don't need guns! I can't believe this is even an issue.

[hack89]

28. The threshold for permanently losing a civil right should be high

In America we decided that the threshold should be the commission of a felony. The question before the court is whether the commission of a non-violent misdemeanor is sufficient grounds.

[niyad]

31. domestic abuse is non-violent? really?????

[hack89]

34. They are trying to define the limits of "physical force"

If there is physical violence or the threat to use a dangerous weapon then they still lose their guns - which is proper. But there has to be a legal line that says "this is physical force and this is not". It was not defined in the law so the court is merely doing their job by defining it.

[niyad]

35. absolutely amazing. non-violent domestic abuse.

[hack89]

36. The law was poorly written - what can I say?

Maybe next time they will put more thought into it.

[niyad]

37. what can you say? how about one iota of concern for the victims?

[hack89]

38. I am just pointing out the legal issues at stake

Perhaps you missed where I said that it was proper to remove guns from men that use physical violence or threaten harm with deadly weapons?

I am not sure what we are fighting over.

[redqueen]

10. This.

“In a country where three women are already murdered every day through domestic violence, it would be tragic beyond measure to re-arm thousands of abusers,” says K Gandy, NNEDV president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence

K&R

[niyad]

12. given the other insanity of the supremes this week, have to wonder what in the hell they are smoking

[Lancero]

18. Did any of them happen to visit...

Colorado?

[niyad]

21. you almost owed me a keyboard.

[frazzled]

15. I am terrified

No, I'm not a victim of domestic abuse myself, and there have never been any guns in my household. But I truly fear that some misguided absolutist notion of "freedom" and "constitutional rights" will put the lives of untold women at risk.

We live in a country that worries about the size of soft drinks, minor ingredients in shampoo, and the horrors wrought upon our kids if they see someone vaping, but we blithely put guns in the arms of untold numbers of crazy people, and then let them carry them into public places at will. And someone gets shot dead for texting during the previews at a movie theater. And now, we may put guns back in the hands of domestic abusers.

I honestly don't know if I want to live in this irrational culture anymore. To me, this crazy gun culture is the most dangerous thing we face today. Yes, it's bigger than just about anything (bigger than Chris Christie even, bigger than NSA phone records). But most people think it's just the cost of doing business in Freedom Land.

[niyad]

16. I think you are quite correct, although the word irrational is a very mild description of the

insanity going on here.

[kcr]

19. The victims and everyone around them

Sometimes they even go to where their victims work and shoot everyone there.

[PeaceNikki]

25. Indeed. See the "Azana Spa shooting" in Brookfield, WI in 2012.

In my backyard, involving people I know.

Terrible.

[kcr]

26. That was was I was thinking of

[PeaceNikki]

27. Gun clutchers will state that he was in violation of the law when that happened, and that is true.

He had just been told to surrender his weapons a couple days before the shooting. But he bought a gun from a private seller in a legal transaction. The seller was not obligated to do a background check.

But anyone who thinks the laws should NOT be tightened up SIGNIFICANTLY rather than loosened is a world-class asshole.

[ecstatic]

22. +1000 nt

[niyad]

23. . .

[Solly Mack]

24. K&R

[redqueen]

41. ...