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


(26,602 posts)
9. I don't read it as a question of overturning the Lautenberg Amendment, but
Sun Jan 19, 2014, 12:11 AM
Jan 2014

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
(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"...
. . . 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...»Reply #9