Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession

[michaelchica]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...,2881431.story

The Supreme Court today upheld a broad federal gun control law which strips gun rights from the many thousands of people who have been convicted of any domestic-violence crime.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices said the federal ban on gun possession was intended to keep "firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The law covers not only those who have felony convictions, she said, but also misdemeanors involving an assault or beating against a former or current spouse or a live-in partner, as well as a child, a parent or others who live together in the home.

"Firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination nationwide," Ginsburg wrote.



She cited a report from the National Institute of Justice which found that about 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by a spouse or partner each year. Many more such offenses are never reported, the report found.

In today's decision, the court settled a linguistic dispute over how to read the law. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited felons from having a firearm. That ban was extended in 1996 to cover a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

Some judges read this narrowly to mean the law did not apply to those who were charged with assaulting or physically threatening someone with whom they had once lived. These judges said the law applied only to those who were convicted or who plead guilty to a "domestic violence" crime.

Some states have laws against "domestic violence" and charge offenders under it. Other states and prosecutors routinely charge offenders with assault or battery.

In an earlier ruling, United States vs. Hayes, the court said the gun ban applies to all such offenses, so long as it can be shown there was a domestic relationship between the offender and victim.

The ruling reinstates an illegal gun possession charge against Randy Hayes, a West Virginia man who was found to have three guns in 2004. He also had on his record a 1994 misdemeanor for battery against a woman who "was cohabiting with him."

Hayes had argued that the federal gun-control law did not apply because he had been convicted of "generic battery," not a "domestic violence" law. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., agreed, limiting the reach of the law.

Bush administration lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, which reinstated the broad view of the federal law today.

The case did not involve the Second Amendment and the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision said Americans have a right to have a gun for self-defense, but its opinion reaffirmed the validity of laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in the West Virginia case, but they focused tightly on the words of the law to conclude it was limited to "domestic violence" crimes only.

[RoyJackson]

This doesn't bode well for future SCOTUS decisions for we gun owners...especially when it comes to restoring rights. Personally, I think the Lautenburg Amendment (which bans "domestic abusers") is a total abomination.

As far as incorporation...I don't know yet (this refers to the Chicago case, BTW).

Which brings up a question...if the 2nd isn't "incorporated" as the left wingers say...how can bans on rights exists?

[customloaded]

I've always felt the Lautenburg Law sucked and this only confirms my attitude. I think it should only apply to felony incidents as there are way more misdemeanor offenses that can be charged for pitty offenses with which officers can charge just to quickly and quietly dispose of a problem instead of handling the situation appropriately.

Each state defines what Domestic Violence is and therefore, there is no uniform standard! What is a Domestic crime in PA might not be in Georgia or Arizona. Total BS!

[D-FENS]

When we allow the government to arbitrarily establish offenses as prohibitng, we must understand that within time jay-walking will be a prohibiting offense.

/thinks any limitation of rights should be explicit in sentencing.

[tl_3237]

The Supreme Court today upheld a broad federal gun control law which strips gun rights from the many thousands of people who have been convicted of any domestic-violence crime.

Not true.

The issue as to the viability of the domestic violence clause was not what was decided by SCOTUS - it was never challenged by Hayes. What was decided was the meaning of a 'domestic violence offense' and whether it be applied for Federal purposes even though the state statues did not have a domestic violent offense classification.

Not saying that I agree with the Lautenberg amendment -- its still ripe for constitutional challenge if anyone is so inclined. US v Hayes is not dispositive as to the law but only as to how to interpret a specific clause in the law.

[jcabin]

I feel morally that the Lautenberg amendment is a responsible restriction for law abiding members of society. However, constitutionally, there is no way I can talk my self into believing that it is not wrong.

[Ten*K]

NON-FAMILY AUTHORITY FIGURE: Well Timmy, has your Daddy ever spanked you?

TIMMY: One time, when I was really bad.

NON-FAMILY AUTHORITY FIGURE: Does your Daddy own any guns?

TIMMY: Yeah, he has a deer rifle

NON-FAMILY AUTHORITY FIGURE: Not anymore, he doesn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the preceding hypothetical situation is just one of many mis-applications of such laws. Couple that with outright refusal of law enforcement agencies to enforce those annoying PFA's, and you get a system that's as back-asswards, useless, and just plain wrong.

Add a sprinkling of dick-head prosecutor and both victims who defend themselves and wrongly accused folks alike get screwed by the boat load.

[Fr0sty]

NON-FAMILY AUTHORITY FIGURE: Well Timmy, has your Daddy ever spanked you?

TIMMY: One time, when I was really bad.

NON-FAMILY AUTHORITY FIGURE: Does your Daddy own any guns?

TIMMY: Yeah, he has a deer rifle

NON-FAMILY AUTHORITY FIGURE: Not anymore, he doesn't.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

the preceding hypothetical situation is just one of many mis-applications of such laws. Couple that with outright refusal of law enforcement agencies to enforce those annoying PFA's, and you get a system that's as back-asswards, useless, and just plain wrong.

Add a sprinkling of dick-head prosecutor and both victims who defend themselves and wrongly accused folks alike get screwed by the boat load.

+1 to rep for this post.. This happens today even, I just haven't linked the gun ownership to it.

Off-topic, but along the lines of your post:

When I was kid and out of line (Way out of line), my Dad would give me a reminder of rules with a belt. He didn't beat the snot out of me, 1 or 2 smacks was typically enough to get his point across. When I was a kid, I hated it, and felt it was cruel. Today, I thank him for it as I think it helped me shake the bad habits that would have hurt me today. I personally think more kids need to learn some hard lessons as it will help put a dent into some of these out of control kids. Nothing says STFU to a kid like a 2 inch wide length of leather on a bare backside. Bet your bottom dollar, when I did earn the visit from the raw hide I didn't make the same mistake again, and at the time even something like talking back was the not a thought in mind. I think that is where I learned the responses, Yes Sir & No Sir which I still use today

The funny thing is, my Dad may have done it a total 10x in my entire childhood, and each time it was WELL deserved. These days he would be considered a child-beater and would have the book thrown at him. All of the negatives for teaching me what I needed to succeed in today's world.

/End off topic post

[autotech6506]

To the person above, it's our own fault that spanking is "abuse". People got stuck with a bs charge for spanking their kid and they didn't fight it. I know if i got called out for spanking my kid I'd give them the riot act and make it damn certain that they knew what was what.

I also feel abusers are scum of the earth. There is no reason to hit your wife (at all) or your child (other than a spanking). If you can't control your anger with your fists, why would you want a person like that to have a gun?

[cgbudde]

To the person above, it's our own fault that spanking is "abuse". People got stuck with a bs charge for spanking their kid and they didn't fight it. I know if i got called out for spanking my kid I'd give them the riot act and make it damn certain that they knew what was what.

I also feel abusers are scum of the earth. There is no reason to hit your wife (at all) or your child (other than a spanking). If you can't control your anger with your fists, why would you want a person like that to have a gun?

I agree, a person who hits a woman is a time bomb waiting to explode, and I for one would not want to see him armned.