Man Convicted Of Domestic Violence Can’t Possess A Gun, Supreme Court Rules

[ProSense]

Man Convicted Of Domestic Violence Can’t Possess A Gun, Supreme Court Rules

By Nicole Flatow

When it comes to “domestic violence,” even pushing or grabbing can be sufficient to bar federal gun possession, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a unanimous ruling issued Wednesday morning.

The ruling could have significant implications in interpreting which state domestic violence laws bar gun possession. For women in particular, domestic violence is one of the biggest risks associated with gun ownership. A Violence Policy Center review of 2011 FBI crime data found that 94 percent of female homicide victims were murdered by a male they knew, and 61 percent of those killers were a spouse or intimate acquaintance. Female intimate partners were more likely to be killed by a gun than any other weapon.

Because of this relationship between gun ownership and intimate violence, federal law bars those convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense from possessing a gun. But state crimes dubbed “domestic violence” come with different definitions in different states. And James Alvin Castleman seized on these differences to convince a federal court that he was not guilty of illegal gun possession because his guilty plea for a Tennessee domestic violence offense did not qualify under federal law.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Castleman Wednesday, holding that the crime of “intentionally or knowingly” causing bodily injury to the mother of his child was a crime that involved “physical force,” and that Castlemen was therefore barred from possessing a gun.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/26/3419173/man-convicted-of-domestic-violence-cant-possess-a-gun-supreme-court-rules/

[Loudly]

1. A victory for common sense. And unanimous, which is a little surprising.

Still, the actual ability to obtain a gun and ammunition remains an issue.

Need to make them scarce.

[hlthe2b]

4. exactly. I am pleased but quite surprised that basic common sense wone out at SCOTUS

[calimary]

84. That's rather astounding. A unanimous ruling? On restricting access to guns?

I'm stunned! Seriously.

Maybe guns should be like abortion has been described in the past - "safe, legal, and rare." I actually wouldn't mind seeing them all done away with, completely, but I realize that's a rather utopian dream.

[Loudly]

87. Insist on it and maybe we'll get the situation turned around at least.

The proliferation must stop. We know THAT'S the wrong direction.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. A 9-0 sane decision?

How the Hell did that happen?

[madaboutharry]

52. What does it say about the SC

that we are stunned?

[Mike Daniels]

3. Wonder if the NRA will come to the defense of convicted wife beaters' rights to possess a gun?

Sandy Hook (for whatever reason) wasn't enough to convince Congress that the NRA should be ignored on certain matters.

Perhaps the NRA's inevitable public insistence that someone who was convicted of domestic violence be allowed to continue to possess a gun will finally be the straw that breaks their back.

[TimeToEvolve]

5. you bet they will

wife beaters and sociopaths are the NRA's largest supporters

[calimary]

86. Welcome to DU, TimeToEvolve!

Glad you're here! Astounding, the excuses and weasel-words that come out in defense of wanton access to guns.

[Ohio Joe]

9. Not just the NRA but the MRA's as well...

You know... They have to be able to protect themselves from the women oppressing them

[flamin lib]

56. There are a few in the gubgeon who are on record for issuing

concealed carry licenses to known drunken wife beaters.

[uncommonlink]

58. Links?

[flamin lib]

66. Long thread . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172139135#post13

[Eleanors38]

68. Yes, "known to LEO" to be a leftist, terrorist, unionist, trouble-maker, fill-in-the-blank...

SUCH a believer in due process.

[uncommonlink]

69. Thanks for the link.

The only thing I see is that due process be followed.
Would you be in favor of denying ownership on an allegation only? Anyone can say anything against another, which may turn out to be false, should the accused be stripped of their gun rights on an allegation only?
It's a well known fact that in NYC, who has may issue, you have to be (A) someone famous, or (B) give large donations to the right people, the same applies in some CA. cities and counties.
Does that sound like a fair system?

I'm all for gun ownership, and carry permits, as long as the person meets all requirements, what I'm not in favor of is some bureaucrat or sheriff/police chief having arbitrary power to deny someone just for any reason at all.

[flamin lib]

70. KNOWN DRUNKEN WIFE BEATER. Is that so hard to interpret?

Zimmerman abused his wife. She didn't file charges. Zimmerman destroyed his girl friend's apartment and police had evidence on the 911tape. She didn't file charges.

My wife interviewed a woman who was pistol whipped with a broken eye socket, police were called to the scene. She didn't press charges.

KNOWN DRUNKEN WIFE BEATER.

You see "due process", I see endless excuses to give kown drunken wife beaters guns.

[uncommonlink]

72. Known to whom?

You keep say known, but known by who? Is there a conviction in a court of law? Or is it just an allegation?

The law says that to be DQ'd, there has to be a conviction, not just known, which could mean anything.

What part of "due process" is tripping you up here?

[flamin lib]

73. Please re-read my previous post.

Known to law enforcement who SHOULD have input into who carries or even owns a gun.

In the case of the pistol whipping victim the police were on the scene, saw a man stumbling drunk and a woman beaten near death. She didn't file charges because she had 4 kids and no prospects for support other than the drunken bastard who beat her.

KNOWN DRUNKEN WIFE BEATER.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

89. wife walks in with bruises on her eyes and her arm in a sling. this happens alot

no criminal charges because she lives in fear. by your logic, hubby mcloosefists should have access to a gun.

makes perfect sense to me.

[Swede Atlanta]

83. The post says "convicted" even of a misdemeanor.......

so I don't think you need to worry that we are starting to deny things based solely on allegations EXCEPT

if you are alleged to be involved in some bad stuff..you know...the one that starts with a "T" and ends with an "M". Then you can be denied any and all due process. Or if you are Manning or if Snowden were naive enough to believe any offer made by the U.S. government. The U.S. government are nothing but liars, cheats and thieves. We all know that.

[Eleanors38]

63. How do you "know" this, oh great keeper of records?

[hack89]

65. I call BS on this. nt

[redqueen]

6. This is such good news.

So happy to be able to rec this.

[Turbineguy]

7. Wayne LaPierre

is gonna be pissed!

[Mike Daniels]

8. It's going to be great watching Wayne spin why wife beaters deserve 2nd amendment rights

Esp. when the "activist court" complaint falls apart given the 9-0 decision.

[Mr.Bill]

16. Wayne LaPierre

will say the woman should have had a gun.

[calimary]

85. Oh boo-hoo. Too frickin' bad!

If he's unhappy about it, then it must be something good for the rest of us.

[hack89]

10. Good decision. nt

[malthaussen]

11. Well, that's amazing. n/t

[llmart]

12. Good to hear!

Any "man" (aka bully) who physically harms a woman should never be allowed to own a gun. The last thing a bully needs is to have a gun at the ready when he can't control his anger.

[TBF]

13. I hope someone spreads this news to Florida. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

14. wow! 0-6 for common sense!

What a breath of fresh air.

[FairWinds]

15. What's Good For The Goose Dept.

If the SCOTUS really had respect for the 2nd amendment and the
constitution they would allow and encourage gun-toting in their
own courtroom. After all, a well armed courtroom is a polite
courtroom.

[SunSeeker]

90. You can't even get a nail file through the SCOTUS metal detectors.

But the rest of us have to deal with nutbags with AR15s strapped to their backs at JC Penneys.

[oldandhappy]

17. Zimmerman's wife did not prosecute

so I guess this lets him off. But since he wants to be a lawyer (giggle) maybe he will pay attention.

[newdemocrat999]

30. In many states she wouldn't have a choice

When the police show up , if there is evidence of assault the state can prosecute .

They don't need the wife , husband or child to press charges.

Maybe Florida is different ?

[L0oniX]

82. Actually it's not up to the spouse anymore in Florida ...not if there is any evidence...

or admission to an officer.

[jwirr]

18. Doesn't good old zimmerman have a conviction of domestic abuse?

[hack89]

20. No.

before the shooting he and his girlfriend took out restraining orders on each other through civil court - no arrest or conviction involved. After the shooting he was in an incident but the charges were dropped.

[billh58]

19. Finally, even the right-wingers

and NRA apologists can't hide behind the gun lobby lie that the Second Amendment allows anti-social misfits to possess guns -- even if they can pass a "good old boy" background check.

I believe that even the right-leaning Justices of the SCOTUS realize that they overreached in the Heller decision, and opened a can of worms with respect to the madness going on in Florida and Georgia, and other right-wing dominated Red States. I highly suspect that they will reel in the "bear arms" part of the Second Amendment with future decisions.

[hack89]

22. This has nothing to do with Heller - wishful thinking on your part

this was the Supreme Court defining what a federal law meant when it mentions domestic violence.

[libodem]

21. Victory

Thank you, Goddess! I weathered a horrible domestic situation in my younger years. It was the most terrifying experience of my life when I found out he bought a handgun after we separated. I knew I was one dead pregnant woman with two little boys.

[Paladin]

23. A genuinely surprising decision.

Looking forward to the pro-gun folks spinning this one.

[hack89]

24. The Supreme Court defined domestic violence as contained in the Lautenberg amendment

it is not a new law - it dates from 1997. This guy felt he found a loop hole. The court said no.

Don't see what the big deal is - people with convictions of domestic violence should not have guns. I don't think there is much controversy over it.

[billh58]

25. They have already started

as evidenced by the legal howling and Zimmerman support on this thread...

[Jenoch]

26. Which posts are in support of Zimmerman?

[uncommonlink]

35. Nobody.

I don't know why he would post such nonsense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. "I don't know why he would post such nonsense."

Change the names and politics, and you will have seen something similar
known as "Obama Derangement Syndrome".

Extremists of any stripe are invariably more like the extremists they ostensibly oppose
than the moderates they supposedly are allied with. Eric Hoffer described it decades ago
in "The True Believer"

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. They exist in the same universe where Maryland is coterminous with Hawaii...

[The Magistrate]

27. I Confess I Am Surprised, Ma'am, By This Outbreak Of Sanity On The High Court Bench

Let us hope it is not merely an acute episode, but settles in to become chronic, and endemic to the chambers in future....

[hack89]

33. Not surprising considering the Lautenberg amendment has passed consitutional muster before

this guy felt he had found a loophole in how domestic violence was defined. The SC said no and provided a more thorough definition.

All in all, a expected and welcomed decision.

[petronius]

28. Good ruling. I like that explanation from Justice Sotomayor and the DOJ quote:

“Indeed, ‘most physical assaults committed against women and men by intimates are relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting,’” Sotomayor wrote, quoting a Department of Justice report. “Minor uses of force may not constitute ‘violence’ in the generic sense. … But an act of this nature is easy to describe as ‘domestic violence,’ when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other’s control. If a seemingly minor act like this draws the attention of authorities and leads to a successful prosecution for a misdemeanor offense, it does not offend common sense or the English language to characterize the resulting conviction as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.’”

[newdemocrat999]

29. right decision , It should also be if you have been convicted of a DUI or DWI

If you lack the common sense to know how dangerous driving while impaired can be.

Then you should never be able to buy or own a firearm ...period

[FailureToCommunicate]

31. +1. And welcome to DU.

[newdemocrat999]

32. Thank you for the welcome , I wasn't sure how some would react to my post

[hack89]

34. Should a DUI or DWI also mean permanent loss of your driver's license?

I happen to think it should.

[newdemocrat999]

39. yes

[Logical]

43. Forever? How GOP of you. n-t

[hack89]

45. The GOP doesn't think you can lose the right to own guns forever.

I do.

[Logical]

46. So a 21 year old college kid has a .09 BAC level, never drive again in his life? n-t

[hack89]

47. If he slapped his girlfriend, never own a gun again?

shouldn't people be severely punished for potentially endangering lives?

[Logical]

48. Answer the question. Never drive again for a .09 BAC? Yes/no? nt

[hack89]

49. Only if a DWI means never owning a gun again.

look at what started this sub-thread.

[blueamy66]

60. Answer the question please...

yes or no

[hack89]

61. I just did

go back and look at what started this thread. I was tweaking the poster to see just how far he would be willing to take his notion.

In the adult word, there are nuances that transcend yes or no answers. I suggest you go back, read the sub thread, and try for a deeper level of comprehension this time.

[blueamy66]

62. I read the entire thread.

You just won't answer the question that was posed of you.

Should a kid that gets a DUI be denied a DL for the rest of his/her life?

And you don't have to be condescending.

[hack89]

64. Of course not

Last edited Thu Mar 27, 2014, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

just like a kid who gets a dui should not lose the right to own a gun for live.

[blueamy66]

77. I get it now....

Sorry....

And I agree. A man or woman who merely pushes or shoves someone and has a DV charge slapped against them, IMHO, shouldn't lose their right to own a gun forever.

[NutmegYankee]

75. There is no right to a driver's license.

It is purely a privilege. We deliver lifetime ban's on voting and owning firearms, both of which are rights and require due process through the courts, so why not drunk driving?

[blueamy66]

76. But DUI, in and of itself, is not a violent crime.

I think that a lifetime ban on voting for a convicted felon is an antiquated rule and should be done away with.

I think that this whole subject should be revisited. There are many felonies that do not include violence...

[NutmegYankee]

78. I'm playing devils advocate.

There are some extremely fucked up scenarios under current law. There are still gay men in southern states who have to register as sex offenders and carry a felony conviction because they were convicted under the now unconstitutional "crimes against nature" or sodomy laws.

I've never had a single person on DU adequately explain to me why we shouldn't allow a man who's "felony crime" was to have consenting sex with another adult man own a gun or vote.

[Chan790]

80. Yes. I believe that can be situationally-reasonable.

Not as an absolute zero-tolerance sentence, but it should be on the table.

If people knew they'd possibly lose their right to drive for life for even a single violation, they'd be a lot more careful about getting in a car drunk.

[Chan790]

79. I believe so, possibly.

Maybe not the first but definitely the second. Possibly the first, based on judicial discretion.

[blueamy66]

59. What?

If you get a speeding ticket or run a stop sign, should you not be able to legally own a gun? If you lack the common sense to know how dangerous it is to speed or fail to obey traffic laws....

2 way different things!

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. A good ruling. K&R

[Javaman]

40. Gun possession.

I think a lot of gun nuts have this...

think about it. lol

[billh58]

42. +100

Like most right-wingers, they certainly are "possessed."

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. This is an excellent decision.

Such a conviction is a de facto demonstration of unsuitability to possess weapons. While I don't normally support mandating felony-level punishments for misdemeanor crimes, this penalty* for this crime seems like simple good sense.

* besides whatever jail time, etc., the offender received upon conviction

[PeaceNikki]

50. good.

[Kurovski]

51. Very smart move. (nt)

[Thinkingabout]

53. Good move for SC, hopefully Congress will get their heads straight on

Passing the violence act. Never should anyone be subject to violence and a abuser will get more abusive as time goes on unless there is intervention. Maybe Congress can also see the need for background checks. SC has taken a good stand, let Congress also take a good stand.

[Kablooie]

54. The NRA assures us that he can easily buy a gun even if it's illegal.

Sure if he gets caught he can be arrested but the NRA insures that he can do this without any records.

[OnlinePoker]

55. Here's a couple of questions

Would this ruling mean police and military members who have misdemeanor convictions would no longer be allowed to possess a weapon? If I was an adult child living at home and one of my parents was a convicted domestic abuser, would I be allowed to have a gun in the house?

[uncommonlink]

57. That's exactly what it means.

Police and military aren't exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment, several cops have either been fired or been forced to resign since this law went into effect in 1997.

As a result, a number of police officers and military personnel have been dismissed as a result of domestic violence crimes, some of which were committed before the law was passed. This is not due to the letter of the law, but is a side effect of their loss of access to the firearms needed to carry out their duties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautenberg_Amendment

Yes, you can have a gun in the house if it's secured in a way that the convicted person has no access to it.

[Eleanors38]

67. Good decision. No surprise.

[4dsc]

71. worst law ever passed

sorry if I don't go along with the group think here but barring an individual from gun ownership because of a misdemeanor is bad for the country.

[gollygee]

95. Only for a violent misdemeanor

Not for jaywalking.

[Turbineguy]

74. But.....

If we don't make sure that "bad guys" can easily get guns, we can't sell more guns to "good guys". It's the thin end of the wedge that would lead to total disarmament of white people!

[L0oniX]

81. I believe that has been the law in Florida since 1995.

[Cha]

88. THank you, PS!

[sheshe2]

91. Kick and Hell yes Recommend!

Sorry I missed this.

There was abuse in my marriage and he owned a gun. The police were called to the house once, I never pressed charges. Instead, I walked away after 4 short or maybe long years.

My thanks to the Supreme Court.

Thank you PS this is wonderful news.

[Deep13]

92. I read about this in Well, Obviously magazine. nt

[Auntie Bush]

93. If I had a son with a hot temper I'd be glad he couldn't get a gun for his own sake.

[Ino]

94. I'm so glad to hear "even pushing or grabbing" mentioned in the same breath as "domestic violence"

My ex claimed he wasn't abusive because he didn't leave bruises. And if I got hurt when he grabbed or jerked me, it was because I was resisting him!