PDA

View Full Version : High court bolsters domestic violence gun ban law



Gman
03-27-2014, 20:19
High court bolsters domestic violence gun ban law (http://news.msn.com/us/high-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 doesn't specify that his domestic violence crime had to include physical force.

A federal judge agreed with Castleman and dismissed the charges because, he said, the victim could theoretically have been poisoned or tricked into injuring herself, which wouldn't technically count as physical force. The dismissal was upheld, on different grounds, by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and reinstated the charges against Castleman, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Writing for the court, Sotomayor said it was enough that Castleman pleaded guilty to having "intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to" the mother of his child.

"Because Castleman's indictment makes clear that physical force was an element of his conviction, that conviction qualifies as a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,'" Sotomayor said.

The Obama administration had argued that the lower court decisions would effectively nullify the gun ban in dozens of states where misdemeanor domestic violence laws don't specify the degree of force needed for conviction. That would frustrate the intent of Congress, the administration argued, which was to keep firearms away from anyone found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, praised Wednesday's ruling.

The case is U.S. v. Castleman, 12-1371.

Eric P
03-27-2014, 20:29
Where the fuck do they find the grounds for these rulings in the constitution? After conviction and time served, you are still a citizen with equal rights to everyone else, right? So what right do these worthless lawmakers have to take away rights?

Clint45
03-27-2014, 20:44
Where the fuck do they find the grounds for these rulings in the constitution? After conviction and time served, you are still a citizen with equal rights to everyone else, right? So what right do these worthless lawmakers have to take away rights?

Gun Control Act of 1968 created a "prohibited person" status meaning that rights are not automatically restored after an offender's sentence is completed. In 2000 this status was expanded to include those with a conviction for misdemeanor domestic abuse as well. Other lesser known "prohibited persons" include users of illegal drugs (which includes state legal MMJ) and individuals who have "renounced their citizenship" (undefined). To answer your question, "prohibited person" status does not appear to be constitutional.

Gman
03-27-2014, 22:53
Since when does our government recognize the Constitution?

wctriumph
03-28-2014, 10:38
Since when does our government recognize the Constitution?

It would seem anytime it suits their needs at the moment.


TEA

III

merl
03-28-2014, 10:50
That was an absolutely horrible test case.

asmo
03-28-2014, 11:47
That was an absolutely horrible test case.

Hence why they pushed it forward and so far..

For anyone interested: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1371_6b35.pdf

MED
03-28-2014, 11:54
My x-wife was abused by her first husband. She finally pressed charges and he was convicted when he held his gun to her head and threated to kill her after beating her. As far as I am concerned, that son of bitch along with any person who is convicted of hitting his girlfriend, wife, or kids loses their rights. I am a firm believer that we all should treasure our constitutional rights but that doesn't mean that we don't pay for the things we do and avoid the consequences for doing them. When convicted in a court of law, these people need to face the consequences not to mention that there is something seriously wrong with somebody who gets off on beating somebody vulnerable including animals. My x-wife will never fully recover from what happened, and it contributed to our marriage failing. She volunteers for safe houses; yes, there is a serious problem, and no, I don't think we should be focusing attention on overturning domestic violence laws.

davsel
03-28-2014, 12:33
Hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of a vindictive spouse who gets a protective order through within minutes, with no trial, no representation, just lies.
I believe if you put your hands on your wife, or threaten her in any way, you should go directly to jail for a very long time.
However, I also believe the system has swayed so far to the "victim's" side that there is little due process left to protect an innocent defendant.

asmo
03-28-2014, 13:32
I was present for a 'domestic disturbance' many many years ago. I was helping a friend move out of his apartment while he and his wife were 'taking a break'. We had scheduled it so she would not be there and we could be in-and-out in an hour or so. The female shows up in the middle of us moving and starts screaming and hollering and causing grief. We are moving the couch down the stairs and she is behind us (higher on the stairs) screaming and yelling. She took a step too fast and fell -- down she came.

Cut to 10 minutes later when the cops show (neighbor called due to all the screaming). The female has a scrape on her forehead and her shoulder. Cop asks how it happens, she said that her husband pushed her and she fell down the stairs (impossible because he was at the bottom of the steps - and there were at least 3 grown men and 30' of distance between them at the time). 30 minutes later buddy gets taken away for domestic violence -- even though we protest and try and tell the cops what happened, but they aren't hearing it. A few weeks later my buddy gets a summons for DV, we all go to court, attempt to testify and all the other nonsense -- in the end the judge doesn't want to hear any of it. Things get set for trial.. During all this they ask my buddy if he owns any guns, he says yes -- and all hell breaks loose from a legal sense. Long story short it never goes all the way to trial.... The whole time she continues to use the DV charge as a bargaining chip during the divorce, saying "she" will drop it if he gives up custody of the kids and pays a bunch of child support.

Fast forward -- he is now a prohibited person, had to do classes for DV, all for apparently pushing a woman down some stairs, which I know for a fact he did not do.

Moral of the story: The system is slanted and anything but fair. All the other side has to do is accuse you and you are F*&Ked.. They will do anything in their power to get you into the system - and once you are there its game over.


P.S. We come to find out many years later that one of her friends told her to show up and pull the whole stunt -- just so she could use it later against him.

rbeau30
03-28-2014, 17:33
Hope you never find yourself on the receiving end of a vindictive spouse who gets a protective order through within minutes, with no trial, no representation, just lies.
I believe if you put your hands on your wife, or threaten her in any way, you should go directly to jail for a very long time.
However, I also believe the system has swayed so far to the "victim's" side that there is little due process left to protect an innocent defendant.


THIS. Your say against hers... she wins, hands down.

rbeau30
03-28-2014, 17:35
Moral of the story: The system is slanted and anything but fair. All the other side has to do is accuse you and you are F*&Ked.. They will do anything in their power to get you into the system - and once you are there its game over.

And..... THIS

Even if you are found innocent.. you are still guilty. "Have you ever been Arrested (accused) of DV before?"

kidicarus13
03-28-2014, 17:46
Moral of the story: The system is slanted and anything but fair. All the other side has to do is accuse you and you are F*&Ked.. They will do anything in their power to get you into the system

True. Too much potential liability for agencies to not arrest someone for DV even with the smallest amount of evidence (verbal statement). DV is occasionally used as a leverage tool during the divorce process, just like children unfortunately.

CO Hugh
03-28-2014, 20:18
Moral of the story: The system is slanted and anything but fair. All the other side has to do is accuse you and you are F*&Ked.. They will do anything in their power to get you into the system - and once you are there its game over.

Like any program the monied interests (Criminal Justice, therapists, DV industry) used the worst cases to push for unneeded law, and now its abused.

Plus all the crazy women out there. They use their mouths as weapons controlled by their emotions without restraint because they never have to back it up.