Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHigh court bolsters domestic violence gun ban law
WASHINGTON (AP) People convicted of minor domestic violence offenses can be barred from possessing guns even in states where no proof of physical violence is required to support the domestic violence charge, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
The ruling was a victory for the Obama administration, gun control groups and advocates for victims of domestic abusers who say the gun ban is critical in preventing the escalation of domestic violence.
The justices unanimously rejected the argument put forth by gun rights groups and a Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault against the mother of his child in 2001. The man, James Castleman, was then charged in 2009 with illegal possession of a firearm after he and his wife were accused of buying guns and selling them on the black market.
Federal law bars a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence involving the use of physical force or a deadly weapon from possessing a firearm. But Castleman said he should not have to face the gun charges because the Tennessee law doesnt specify that his domestic violence crime had to include physical force.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2014/03/26/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law/9aTiYcEKTCGpFkrXhOW47H/story.html
The ruling was a victory for the Obama administration, gun control groups and advocates for victims of domestic abusers who say the gun ban is critical in preventing the escalation of domestic violence.
The justices unanimously rejected the argument put forth by gun rights groups and a Tennessee man who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault against the mother of his child in 2001. The man, James Castleman, was then charged in 2009 with illegal possession of a firearm after he and his wife were accused of buying guns and selling them on the black market.
Federal law bars a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence involving the use of physical force or a deadly weapon from possessing a firearm. But Castleman said he should not have to face the gun charges because the Tennessee law doesnt specify that his domestic violence crime had to include physical force.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2014/03/26/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law/9aTiYcEKTCGpFkrXhOW47H/story.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1141 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
High court bolsters domestic violence gun ban law (Original Post)
SecularMotion
Mar 2014
OP
uncommonlink
(261 posts)1. Good ruling.
Jgarrick
(521 posts)2. I agree.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)3. And unanimous at that.
That's what surprised the hell out of me.
petronius
(26,602 posts)4. Good ruling! Here's a link to the full decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1371_6b35.pdf
Shamelessly plagiarized from happyslug in the LBN thread...
Shamelessly plagiarized from happyslug in the LBN thread...
hack89
(39,171 posts)5. Not an earth shattering decision
This is an old law - the guy thought he had found a loophole in how domestic violence was defined. The SC said no.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)6. Good on the Supremes. K&R
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)7. Overdue, but welcome. nt
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)8. Not quite the answers you wanted I see
Nice ruling, Sounds like the laws will now be clarified for the good.