US top court rules domestic abusers can't own guns

[hue]

Source: CENT NEWS

United States - The US Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling Wednesday upheld a federal law barring anyone convicted of even a minor domestic violence charge from ever owning a gun.

The nine justices of the top court ruled against James Castleman, who argued that his past conviction in Tennessee of misdemeanor domestic assault against the mother of his child shouldn't keep him from owning a firearm under federal law.

Castleman had been charged with illegal possession of a firearm when he and his wife were later accused of trafficking weapons on the black market. One of these weapons was found at the scene of a crime in Chicago.

An appeals court in Tennessee had agreed with Castleman's contention that the Tennessee definition of misdemeanor domestic assault is less strict than the federal one, and that the incident for which he was convicted did not include physical force as described under the federal law.

But the Supreme Court overruled that decision.

Progressive Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Castleman's arguments "are unpersuasive" and the court saw "no anomaly in grouping domestic abusers convicted of generic assault or battery offenses together with the others whom (federal law) disqualifies from gun ownership."

The top court thus upholds the federal law on gun ownership, which is more strict than those of most states.

Read more: http://www.centnews.com/Politics/US-top-court-rules-domestic-abusers-can-t-own-guns/S-2014-03-26/50365.html

[enlightenment]

1. Good. nt

[sakabatou]

36. +1

[hlthe2b]

2. It will be interesting to see if states actually step up and address this retrospectively...

That should put some fear into some of the more belligerent and demonstrably violent gun owners.

[hack89]

5. There should be uniformity as to how the states define domestic violence

and they should take a hard line to ensure there is no lee way for violent people to get guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Pretty sure most states already enforce the Lautenberg Amendment.

What they lack, is the ability to knowingly do so, since people don't register guns. Cops don't know what to collect when someone is convicted.

[hue]

3. This ruling prevent many of the Tea/Repukes/NRA from owing their firearms!

[uncommonlink]

6. This ruling will prevent many from owning firearms,

regardless of political party.

It's a good ruling and I'm somewhat surprised that it was unanimous.

[eggplant]

16. Domestic abuse isn't tied to one party.

[hue]

18. Very true.

[Mr.Bill]

29. I'm afraid it wont stop them from owning them,

it will just make it illegal. I hope I'm wrong.

I wonder haw many domestic violence killings are done with guns that were already illegal to own by the perpetrator.

[Jgarrick]

30. It won't, any more than making drugs illegal keeps people from using them.

I hope I'm wrong

You're not.

[Deuce]

38. I agree...

[alp227]

4. MRA and gundamentalist blogs will be in total meltdown today.

"The wussification of America continues"..."the feminazis have won"..."Obama wants to take away your guns if you have an argument with your wife"...

BTW this story is from Agence France-Presse, not sure why this website didn't attribute the story. The Associated Press also has this story, High court bolsters domestic violence gun ban law

[KamaAina]

14. As will the Gungeon.

"gundamentalist" FTW!!

[uncommonlink]

17. Doubtful.

So far I see 2-3 regulars from there that agree with the ruling.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Make that four- I agree with it. Your interlocutor needs to be reminded of...

...the old aphorism that says "It's not what you don't know that messes you up,
it's what you think you know that ain't so..."

[hack89]

31. No - this is a 17 year old law

some guy thought he found a loophole. The SC said no.

[TygrBright]

7. Wait....! Is that a CAMEL'S NOSE I see?!? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

9. This isn't a new thing. This has been the law since what, 1986?

The law just survived a challenge. It's been enforced plenty already.

(A good ruling)

[perdita9]

10. The Supreme Court gets something right for a change!

Well done, judges!

[berni_mccoy]

11. NRA Flipout in 3..2..1..

[kimbutgar]

12. NRA gun rights nuts heads exploding

Oh delish I love it!

[bowens43]

13. cool

[KamaAina]

15. I might even break strict protocol and head over to the Gungeon

to see if anybody's defending the poor, put-upon domestic abusers.

[uncommonlink]

19. It's not even posted there.

Maybe you might start a thread, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the comments.

Ok, a thread has been started there.

[LanternWaste]

21. Welcome back!!!

Welcome back!!!

[uncommonlink]

24. Welcome back?

From where? Where did I go?

[billh58]

35. +100

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. What about the returnee that speaks rather Loudly against guns?

Aren't you going to welcome him back, too?

[uncommonlink]

40. Still trying to figure out what welcome back means.

I wasn't aware that I took a trip anywhere.
I guess he's with the NSA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. He's implying you're a zombie, a previously banned poster under a new name

Loudly is one, having been banned under the name of sharesunited.
He was outed via some rather clever textual analysis by DUer beevul:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117225540#post24

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=468523

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=23885

BTW, *are* you a zombie? As you can see, they're allowed if they have the proper bona fides...

[uncommonlink]

43. Zombie? What an interesting way to describe a banned person.

No, I'm not one of those, I'm just a FNG trying to decide if I fit in here.
So far, it seems ok, but there sure are some nasty people here in cyberspace.

I got called a troll earlier, what's that?

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. I'll let Wikipedia explain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

[uncommonlink]

45. Ok.

Thanks for that link. Guess I could have looked it up myself.

[hack89]

32. You will find support for the law

this is a 17 year old law. This is not a earth shattering decision - some guy thought he found a loop hole and the SC said no.

[samsingh]

20. this is huge

I agree with the ruling.
this also makes the stupid 'infringe' argument a joke. it has been used to say that no matter what damage is caused, we cannot infringe on people having guns.

so now the repug loaded supreme court allow provides some reason in interpretation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. You won't hear any complaints from me. Castleman was convicted after due process...

...and subsequently had his rights removed. 'Due process' is the relevant bit...

[Paladin]

22. I hope Rachel does a segment on this. (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. K&R. This is a good ruling

[RKP5637]

26. Excellent! n/t

[happyslug]

27. Here is the actual opinion

Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

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

It was an actual 6-1-2 decision. All nine justices wanted to uphold the law, the dispute was over what was covered by the federal statute.

In Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133 (2010) the US Supreme Court ruled that when it becomes clear that the common law definition of a term does NOT fit the statute it is used in, then the common law rule will NOT be used. In Johnson, the US Supreme Court ruled that the mere touching of another person was NOT a "violent Felony" as that term was used in federal law regarding sentencining.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-6925.pdf

In this case, the Court ruled that while Johnson was correct, in this case the term "Violent" can be given its Common law meaning for it did fit this type of case.

Scalia disagreed with what the court ruled, he still would have upheld the convection for what the Defendant did was violent, even under the terms used in Johnstown.

Alito and Thomas also dissented, but on the grounds they had written that Johnson should have been decided on grounds used in this decision, not the exemption to the Court decision, this court makes for Johnson.

[awoke_in_2003]

33. Very good. nt

[Gothmog]

34. Good ruling

The 2nd amendment is not absolute

[DiverDave]

37. Dear nra

HAHAHAHAHA

Selling guns to violent people just ups the murder rate.
DUH...

[marble falls]

41. This is good.

[derby378]

46. Let me get this straight...

Castleman wanted to own a gun despite the misdemeanor domestic assault, which happened while he and his wife were trafficking weapons on the black market?

Sometimes, it don't take a genius with a law degree to figure out the right course of action. A drunken goat could have figured this out.

[hack89]

48. You obviously don't have much experience with intoxicated farm animals. nt

[dickthegrouch]

47. Their reputations actually matter to them?

That's the only possible reason for this accommodation of sanity.