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

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

niyad

(113,049 posts)
Fri Jan 17, 2014, 11:12 PM Jan 2014

supreme court will decide on re-arming domestic abusers [View all]

(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/

41 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
. . . niyad Jan 2014 #1
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the Supreme Court will overturn this ban. nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #2
You're probably right... Wounded Bear Jan 2014 #3
not to mention, women do not seem to count (witness them discussing the "safe zones" at niyad Jan 2014 #5
think you are probably correct. niyad Jan 2014 #4
I can't see them doing that. NutmegYankee Jan 2014 #6
I suspect (no expert) that the issue will be the permanent loss of rights for a misdemeanor... Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #7
the fact that domestic abuse is a misdemeanor is pretty disgusting. niyad Jan 2014 #11
There are degrees JJChambers Jan 2014 #14
Think this through all the way. Some domestic abuse SHOULD be a misdemeaner at best. nt Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #17
do you work with domestic abuse victims? have you seen what happens? I have. niyad Jan 2014 #20
Work with them? No. Seen what can happen? Yes.... Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #29
try telling that to the victims I have seen and worked with. niyad Jan 2014 #30
Round them up and I will tell them. They will say "Yeah, no shit." Demo_Chris Jan 2014 #32
not surprised at your response. now, kindly cite the link where I ever said what you italicized. niyad Jan 2014 #33
No, it's a debate over some minor phrasing in the law. NutmegYankee Jan 2014 #13
incorrect. It's whether the conviction must include violence as an element. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #39
I don't read it as a question of overturning the Lautenberg Amendment, but petronius Jan 2014 #9
Dream on. nt geek tragedy Jan 2014 #40
Re-arming domestic abusers? Lunacee_2013 Jan 2014 #8
The threshold for permanently losing a civil right should be high hack89 Jan 2014 #28
domestic abuse is non-violent? really????? niyad Jan 2014 #31
They are trying to define the limits of "physical force" hack89 Jan 2014 #34
absolutely amazing. non-violent domestic abuse. niyad Jan 2014 #35
The law was poorly written - what can I say? hack89 Jan 2014 #36
what can you say? how about one iota of concern for the victims? niyad Jan 2014 #37
I am just pointing out the legal issues at stake hack89 Jan 2014 #38
This. redqueen Jan 2014 #10
given the other insanity of the supremes this week, have to wonder what in the hell they are smoking niyad Jan 2014 #12
Did any of them happen to visit... Lancero Jan 2014 #18
you almost owed me a keyboard. niyad Jan 2014 #21
I am terrified frazzled Jan 2014 #15
I think you are quite correct, although the word irrational is a very mild description of the niyad Jan 2014 #16
The victims and everyone around them kcr Jan 2014 #19
Indeed. See the "Azana Spa shooting" in Brookfield, WI in 2012. PeaceNikki Jan 2014 #25
That was was I was thinking of kcr Jan 2014 #26
Gun clutchers will state that he was in violation of the law when that happened, and that is true. PeaceNikki Jan 2014 #27
+1000 nt ecstatic Jan 2014 #22
. . niyad Jan 2014 #23
K&R Solly Mack Jan 2014 #24
... redqueen Jan 2014 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»supreme court will decide...