US top court rules domestic abusers can't own guns
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
(8,830 posts)sakabatou
(42,176 posts)hlthe2b
(102,379 posts)That should put some fear into some of the more belligerent and demonstrably violent gun owners.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and they should take a hard line to ensure there is no lee way for violent people to get guns.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(4,949 posts)uncommonlink
(261 posts)regardless of political party.
It's a good ruling and I'm somewhat surprised that it was unanimous.
eggplant
(3,913 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,330 posts)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
(521 posts)You're not.
alp227
(32,060 posts)"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
(78,249 posts)"gundamentalist" FTW!!
uncommonlink
(261 posts)So far I see 2-3 regulars from there that agree with the ruling.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...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
(39,171 posts)some guy thought he found a loophole. The SC said no.
TygrBright
(20,771 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The law just survived a challenge. It's been enforced plenty already.
(A good ruling)
perdita9
(1,144 posts)Well done, judges!
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)kimbutgar
(21,210 posts)Oh delish I love it!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)to see if anybody's defending the poor, put-upon domestic abusers.
uncommonlink
(261 posts)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
(37,748 posts)Welcome back!!!
uncommonlink
(261 posts)From where? Where did I go?
billh58
(6,635 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Aren't you going to welcome him back, too?
uncommonlink
(261 posts)I wasn't aware that I took a trip anywhere.
I guess he's with the NSA.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)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
(261 posts)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
(15,333 posts)uncommonlink
(261 posts)Thanks for that link. Guess I could have looked it up myself.
hack89
(39,171 posts)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
(17,601 posts)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
(15,333 posts)...and subsequently had his rights removed. 'Due process' is the relevant bit...
Paladin
(28,276 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 26, 2014, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1371_6b35.pdfIt 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
(34,582 posts)Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The 2nd amendment is not absolute
DiverDave
(4,887 posts)HAHAHAHAHA
Selling guns to violent people just ups the murder rate.
DUH...
marble falls
(57,270 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)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
(39,171 posts)dickthegrouch
(3,184 posts)That's the only possible reason for this accommodation of sanity.