• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
I wonder what our staunch 2nd Amendment advocates will have to say about this decision. Please note that it was a 9-0 ruling.

Supreme Court keeps guns away from those guilty of domestic violence

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday strengthened a federal law that bars anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun.

In a 9-0 decision, the high court said the ban extended to anyone who had pleaded guilty to at least a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, even in cases in which there was no proof of violent acts or physical injury.

The ruling overturns decisions in several regions, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which had said the ban applied only to convictions that involved a "violent use of force."
 
Considering most crimes committed with legal firearms are so called passion crimes such as domestic violence I would say it's at least sensible. Whether it will stop deaths from domestic violence only time will tell.
 
I'm okay with this.
 
The decision is pretty involved.

I haven't read it all but it seems that they focused on the definition of 'physical force' with regard to domestic violence. The upshot is that if you spank your 2 year old and someone complains you're up for 'domestic violence' and if convicted will be a 'prohibited person'.

I think that the decision GREATLY expands the definition of physical force as applied to domestic violence and does so unnecessarily.
 
I wonder what our staunch 2nd Amendment advocates will have to say about this decision. Please note that it was a 9-0 ruling.

It's hard to say because it's very easy for people to get accused of domestic abuse these days with little corroborating evidence. However, in general I have always held the position that once one has completed punishment, including probation, successfully; the full of their rights should be recognized.
 
Is this retroactive?
 
This will simply alter how the domestic abuse cases play out in the court system. Anyone who values the 2nd Amendment rights now has ABSOLUTELY NO advantage to accepting a plea deal on this charge, so that now puts the burden on the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that physical abuse did take place as alleged or the DA will agree to offering a plea on a charge which doesn't invoke this SC precedent, maybe something like trespassing.
 
I don't really agree with this because like others have pointed out, DV isn't always as simple as this person hit their loved one. It isn't right to deny someone gun ownership just because of one incident that could honestly not be like the others. It should not be automatic nor should it be "forever" for all DV convictions, particularly not misdemeanors.
 
It's hard to say because it's very easy for people to get accused of domestic abuse these days with little corroborating evidence. However, in general I have always held the position that once one has completed punishment, including probation, successfully; the full of their rights should be recognized.

SCOTUS also said convicted, which will have no effect on cases that are pending.
 
I'm no expert on criminal law, but isn't a felony conviction an automatic denial of a right to own a firearm. Domestic violence would imply physical violence, so wouldn't that count as assault and isn't assault a felony?

So what constitutes domestic violence? Yelling at your spouse?
 
SCOTUS also said convicted, which will have no effect on cases that are pending.

Yes, but people essentially forced into plea deals because they cannot afford to go to court either by money or time, would have to. That's why they make such extravagant punishments, push for highest charged crime, and then offer some nice little plea deal. In the end, people can get back on with their life if they just take the plea. It's not the most just way to run a criminal court, but it seems to be the way we currently do it.

I think because of the ease and eagerness of our government to arrest and punish, that long standing punishments that infringe on base rights must be handed out very carefully, with considerable restriction, and only if the government can show considerable evidence demonstrating the necessity. These automatic punishments are no good.
 
I'm no expert on criminal law, but isn't a felony conviction an automatic denial of a right to own a firearm. Domestic violence would imply physical violence, so wouldn't that count as assault and isn't assault a felony?

So what constitutes domestic violence? Yelling at your spouse?

Misdemeanor domestic violence is already included as a 'prohibited person'. What this does is expand the definition of physical force as applied to domestic violence.
 
Yes, but people essentially forced into plea deals because they cannot afford to go to court either by money or time, would have to. That's why they make such extravagant punishments, push for highest charged crime, and then offer some nice little plea deal. In the end, people can get back on with their life if they just take the plea. It's not the most just way to run a criminal court, but it seems to be the way we currently do it.

I think because of the ease and eagerness of our government to arrest and punish, that long standing punishments that infringe on base rights must be handed out very carefully, with considerable restriction, and only if the government can show considerable evidence demonstrating the necessity. These automatic punishments are no good.

Agreed.

In OH for the last several years plea deals are offered to keep prison populations down due to overcrowding.

Works out well for the accused, but local LE winds up rearresting the morons, which wastes manpower and money.

Either way, selective enforcement is bull****.
 
Notice some group missing from the bolded text?

The ruling overturns decisions in several regions, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which had said the ban applied only to convictions that involved a "violent use of force."

At issue was a 1996 law in which Congress expanded an existing ban that applied to anyone convicted of a felony in a domestic violence case to include misdemeanor convictions. "Domestic violence is not merely a type of 'violence,'" said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It is term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as 'violent' in a non-domestic context." It includes acts such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping and hitting," she said. It includes acts such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping and hitting," she said. . . .

It "is an important victory for women, children and families across the country who will continue to be protected by strong, sensible federal laws that keep domestic violence abusers from obtaining guns," said Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "It is a telling indictment of the gun lobby's extremism that not a single justice agreed with its call to explode a gaping hole in the law that would have enabled wife-beaters to buy and possess guns in many states."​

Secondly, I thought wife-beating was covered under a felony domestic violence charge. I've actually seen public spats between spouses where the wife grabs the husband's arm as he's trying to walk away from a fight. She's guilty of domestic violence by this standard. This isn't about wife-beating, is it? These behaviors seem to better describe the way women act out physically.
 
I wonder what our staunch 2nd Amendment advocates will have to say about this decision. Please note that it was a 9-0 ruling.

If a individual has been deemed safe enough to be released into the general public then they should have all their rights reinstated.If a individual is too dangerous to have their rights reinstated then that individual should have never been released. Because someone who is hell bent on killing someone will use a knife, their fists, baseball bat, still get their hands on a gun or anything else that can be used to kill someone.
 
The "have you ever been convicted of domestic violence" question was on my application for gun registration when I bought the pistol at a gun show. It was basically a questionnaire that answering yes to anything was reason for denial of purchase.

I immediately mentally noted that DV is mostly a misdemeanor crime. Gun restriction should always be for felony convictions. The Supreme court is unanimously wrong.
 
I wonder what our staunch 2nd Amendment advocates will have to say about this decision. Please note that it was a 9-0 ruling.

I think it's a good thing. It's one more tool to use against those who commit domestic violence. My understanding is that it has a real tendency to escalate over time. Law enforcement needs some help to get these people off the streets, in my opinion.
 
I am think we should be careful in how low we set the bar,
which will remove a person's constitutional rights.
 
I'm no expert on criminal law, but isn't a felony conviction an automatic denial of a right to own a firearm. Domestic violence would imply physical violence, so wouldn't that count as assault and isn't assault a felony?

So what constitutes domestic violence? Yelling at your spouse?




What exactly is domestic violence? Domestic violence refers to violence between spouses, people who live together, people who share a child in common, or people either in a relationship or people who were formally in a relationship. It encompasses any type of physical violence including: pushing, shoving, hitting with an open hand, punching, kicking, striking with an object, choking, spousal rape, sexual assault or any other type of unwanted sexual contact. Outside of relationships, these types of acts would otherwise be criminalized under assault, battery and sex crimes. Whether they are taken out against a perfect stranger, or your spouse, they are illegal either way and are punishable to the full extent of the law.

Domestic violence charges can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony. How they are filed will be up to the prosecutor and will be based on the extent of the injuries, and any prior reported incidents for the accused. If the accused does have a prior criminal history and/or a history of domestic violence on record, both will have an effect on how the charges are eventually filed against the accused.

A misdemeanor conviction can result in a brief jail sentence for the accused. They can also be required to take anger management classes or participate in a domestic intervention program. They can be required to perform community service, they may be subject to various fines and/or charitable donations and they may be subject to a Stay-Away Order which prohibits them from contacting the victim.


Article Source: Domestic Violence Charges: Felony or Misdemeanor?
 
I think it's a good thing. It's one more tool to use against those who commit domestic violence. My understanding is that it has a real tendency to escalate over time. Law enforcement needs some help to get these people off the streets, in my opinion.

Maggie, if you look at question #11 on a form 4473 you will see that misdemeanor domestic violence already makes you a prohibited person. What this ruling does is expand what the definition of physical force is with regard to DV.
 
Notice some group missing from the bolded text?

The ruling overturns decisions in several regions, including the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, which had said the ban applied only to convictions that involved a "violent use of force."

At issue was a 1996 law in which Congress expanded an existing ban that applied to anyone convicted of a felony in a domestic violence case to include misdemeanor convictions. "Domestic violence is not merely a type of 'violence,'" said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It is term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as 'violent' in a non-domestic context." It includes acts such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping and hitting," she said. It includes acts such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping and hitting," she said. . . .

It "is an important victory for women, children and families across the country who will continue to be protected by strong, sensible federal laws that keep domestic violence abusers from obtaining guns," said Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "It is a telling indictment of the gun lobby's extremism that not a single justice agreed with its call to explode a gaping hole in the law that would have enabled wife-beaters to buy and possess guns in many states."​

Secondly, I thought wife-beating was covered under a felony domestic violence charge. I've actually seen public spats between spouses where the wife grabs the husband's arm as he's trying to walk away from a fight. She's guilty of domestic violence by this standard. This isn't about wife-beating, is it? These behaviors seem to better describe the way women act out physically.

How many women shoot their husbands? The only ones I'm aware of are the ones already being abused.

I'm against this legislation but let's not play the 'male victim' card here.
 
I think it's a good thing. It's one more tool to use against those who commit domestic violence. My understanding is that it has a real tendency to escalate over time. Law enforcement needs some help to get these people off the streets, in my opinion.

It removes a Constitutional Right from a person based on an easily leveled and not always true accusation (if convicted).
 
It removes a Constitutional Right from a person based on an easily leveled and not always true accusation (if convicted).

Yes, I understand that. If someone is convicted of, or pleas guilty to, domestic violence, I have no problem with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom