Supreme Court upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence

[Visbek]

Once a debt is fairly paid to society, it's time to move on and rejoin society as a free rightful individual. We don't punish based upon what we think an individual may possibly do, but to what an individual actually does.

In this case, the individual is being punished for what they did. He assaulted his girlfriend, pled guilty, and as a punishment lost his right to bear arms.

A Constitutional right (any Constitutional right) is not a driving privilege or any other privilege to be allowed or removed upon the government's discretion; they are fundamentally unalienable rights.

FYI, "unalienable" is an obsolete term. We use "inalienable" now.

Anyway: The Constitution never actually says anything about inalienable rights. It neither advances nor relies on any specific theory of rights.

As such, I for one do not recognize any inalienable rights whatsoever, nor am I obligated to do so. Rights are social constructions, they are useful fictions, and good ways to codify the values that we as a society choose to respect. As such, there are plenty of free nations that recognize a right to self-defense, but do not recognize a right to bear firearms, and have not plunged into tyranny.

And yes, you certainly can lose all sorts of rights when you are convicted of a crime. Your speech can be limited; your person and domicile (jail cell) can be searched by law enforcement at will; you can be thrown into solitaire without due process, and so on.

What else ya got?

So now misdemeanors suspend Constitutional rights? For one's lifetime? Will we someday say the same for ordinance? Wake-up, America!

This law has been in effect since 1996.

There is no slippery slope here.

 

[Lutherf]

Going to jail for something and ending up convicted are 2 different animals. Looks to me like you are attempting to muddy the waters here, because if that's all that happened to your buddies, then there is no way they were convicted.

Not exactly.

Using the first set of circumstances I cited the guy called his lawyer to contest the charge. The lawyer told him it was best to plea to a reduced charge and enter an "anger management" program because even though he didn't do anything "violent" the way the law reads it would be a simple case for a jury to find against him. Rather than risk exposure to a full blown conviction he would merely accept reduced charges. Now, under current law those reduced charges do not prevent him from obtaining a firearm (though he has not yet been able to get the ones the county confiscated back yet) but with this ruling it seems that he might be added to the list of prohibited persons.

 

[Napoleon]

As well intentioned as it may be - I don't agree with this.

Once a debt is fairly paid to society, it's time to move on and rejoin society as a free rightful individual. We don't punish based upon what we think an individual may possibly do, but to what an individual actually does. A Constitutional right (any Constitutional right) is not a driving privilege or any other privilege to be allowed or removed upon the government's discretion; they are fundamentally unalienable rights.

The issue is that our justice system isn't really designed to address the issues that land people in prison in the first place. They're punished for their crime(s) with prison sentences, but they are not rehabilitated. Just because the term of their punishment has expired and are therefore released doesn't mean they are any less violent or less of a danger to public safety than they were when they went in. In fact, the recidivism rate of domestic abusers is extremely high. Their right to gun ownership isn't stripped as punishment for any given crime they've committed; its stripped because they demonstrate themselves to be a threat to public safety and, unfortunately, we can't equate release from prison with rehabilitation and the elimination of that threat.

 

[Visbek]

Not exactly.

Using the first set of circumstances I cited the guy called his lawyer to contest the charge. The lawyer told him it was best to plea to a reduced charge....

Just FYI: If he plead guilty, that's a conviction.

His attorney should tell him the consequences of taking the deal, as well as what he risks if he goes to trial.

Now, under current law

The law was passed by Congress in 1996.

This isn't even the first time the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. A similar ruling was issued in 2014.

those reduced charges do not prevent him from obtaining a firearm (though he has not yet been able to get the ones the county confiscated back yet) but with this ruling it seems that he might be added to the list of prohibited persons.

Yep.

Depending on the state, the accused may be able to include the restoration of gun rights as part of the plea bargain.

 

[Lutherf]

Before you go too far with this argument, it needs to be understood that there's a difference between being charged and subsequently arrested for domestic violence and being convicted of same which is what the Supreme Court upheld.

Here's the deal, the code section that covers Domestic Violence is here - http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03601.htm
A married person or domestic partner or whatever as defined in the aforementioned statute can be found guilty of domestic violence if they are found guilty of committing a crime under any of the statutes listed in section A of that statute. Using my example from earlier, code section 13-1202 - Format Document - applies:

A. A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct:

1. To cause physical injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another; or

2. To cause, or in reckless disregard to causing, serious public inconvenience including, but not limited to, evacuation of a building, place of assembly or transportation facility; or

3. To cause physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another in order to promote, further or assist in the interests of or to cause, induce or solicit another person to participate in a criminal street gang, a criminal syndicate or a racketeering enterprise.

B. Threatening or intimidating pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that it is a class 6 felony if:

1. The offense is committed in retaliation for a victim's either reporting criminal activity or being involved in an organization, other than a law enforcement agency, that is established for the purpose of reporting or preventing criminal activity.

2. The person is a criminal street gang member.

C. Threatening or intimidating pursuant to subsection A, paragraph 3 is a class 3 felony.

I highlighted the pertinent parts above so that you can see how easy it would be to convict the guy I was talking about of Domestic Violence just because he snatched the phone out of his wife's hand. That act alone could EASILY be interpreted as intimidation and would result in a misdemeanor. If that happened and the law in the OP were applied then he would lose his second Amendment rights.

Now, based on this information, do you still think I'm going too far in my assessment?

 

[Top Cat]

Supreme Court Upholds Wide Reach of U.S. Gun Ban for Domestic Violence

Supreme Court Upholds Wide Reach of U.S. Gun Ban for Domestic Violence - NBC News

The Supremes are on a roll!!!!!

Sorry just saw it's a dupe thread. Mods please delete!

 

[Top Cat]

I agree with the decision. With rights come responsibilities. Break the law? Lose some of your rights.

Article is here.

WooHoo!

Supremes are on a roll!

 

[Objective Voice]

Here's the deal, the code section that covers Domestic Violence is here - 13-3601 - Domestic violence; definition; classification; sentencing option; arrest and procedure for violation; weapon seizure
A married person or domestic partner or whatever as defined in the aforementioned statute can be found guilty of domestic violence if they are found guilty of committing a crime under any of the statutes listed in section A of that statute. Using my example from earlier, code section 13-1202 - Format Document - applies:


I highlighted the pertinent parts above so that you can see how easy it would be to convict the guy I was talking about of Domestic Violence just because he snatched the phone out of his wife's hand. That act alone could EASILY be interpreted as intimidation and would result in a misdemeanor. If that happened and the law in the OP were applied then he would lose his second Amendment rights.

Now, based on this information, do you still think I'm going too far in my assessment?

Only insofar as your buddy wasn't convicted of domestic violence, only arrested and charged with committing the crime of domestic violence. So, while I understand your sense of caution here particularly where the perception or interpretation of intimidation is concerned (i.e., snatching the phone out of someone's hand or smashing your significant other's cellphone in anger) I think it's unfounded considering there is a difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of said crime. Without the conviction, no rights are forfeited.

 

[danarhea]

Only insofar as your buddy wasn't convicted of domestic violence, only arrested and charged with committing the crime of domestic violence. So, while I understand your sense of caution here particularly where the perception or interpretation of intimidation is concerned (i.e., snatching the phone out of someone's hand or smashing your significant other's cellphone in anger) I think it's unfounded considering there is a difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of said crime. Without the conviction, no rights are forfeited.

^
He gets it.

 

[Chillfolks]

do we suspend other rights for misdemeanor offenders?

I can see for felony convictions but not so much misdemeanor convictions.

 

[domer76]

I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.

There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.

I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.

-edit-

I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".

I submit there's a little bit more than your "buddy" just grabbing the phone out of her hand. Or the other story. Sounds like you live in a white trash trailer park.

 

[TurtleDude]

Just FYI: If he plead guilty, that's a conviction.

His attorney should tell him the consequences of taking the deal, as well as what he risks if he goes to trial.



The law was passed by Congress in 1996.

This isn't even the first time the SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. A similar ruling was issued in 2014.



Yep.

Depending on the state, the accused may be able to include the restoration of gun rights as part of the plea bargain.

what about the thousands of people who pled out to what was probably a small fine in say the 80s and 90s rather than spend several thousand dollars in attorney costs and then 10 years later, they lose their constitutional rights based on a plea in say 1986?

 

[TurtleDude]

do we suspend other rights for misdemeanor offenders?

I can see for felony convictions but not so much misdemeanor convictions.

One rather well educated talk show host in Cincinnati (his daughter is now a county prosecutor and former intern for the USDOJ) noted that the Lautenberg amendment was "yes dear" legislation. His point has merit

 

[demsoc70]

How did anyone who was retarded get on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Explain that to us if you can.

Clarence Thomas got on the court.

 

[TurtleDude]

Clarence Thomas got on the court.

Clarence Thomas had a better class standing at Yale law than either member of the Clinton Crime family. and the democrat senate majority leader told the WH counsel (Keisler and Liberman) that if Thurgood Marshall was not replaced by a black, the dems would "bork" the nominee

 

[danarhea]

do we suspend other rights for misdemeanor offenders?

I can see for felony convictions but not so much misdemeanor convictions.

Depends on the level of misdemeanor. Theft of property less than 50 dollars is a class C misdemeanor, and typically results in probation. Not a big problem. Wife beating, however is a class A misdemeanor, which borders on being a felony, and typically results in serious jail time or a very long period of probation. In Texas, probation for domestic abuse can be as long as 5 years, and some class A misdemeanors can result in as much as a 2 year sentence in a state jail. A class A misdemeanor is not like a traffic ticket. It is a very serious crime. A man who beats his wife is a violent person, and should not be trusted with a gun, if convicted. It's not because of the level of the crime, however. It's because a man convicted of domestic abuse has shown that he has a propensity for committing violent acts, therefore earning the loss of his Second Amendment right until he is able to, like a felon, have his rights restored.

 

[Eric7216]

Only insofar as your buddy wasn't convicted of domestic violence, only arrested and charged with committing the crime of domestic violence. So, while I understand your sense of caution here particularly where the perception or interpretation of intimidation is concerned (i.e., snatching the phone out of someone's hand or smashing your significant other's cellphone in anger) I think it's unfounded considering there is a difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of said crime. Without the conviction, no rights are forfeited.

I have almost no faith in the US justice system. What you wrote sounds so reasonable. Yet I believe that there are so many laws (and the old adage about convicting a ham sandwich) and such a heavy punishment for convictions that justice gets perverted. If I was that person who grabbed the phone and the prosecutor told me that he was going to charge me with an assortment of charges and the potential punishment was 15-20 years in jail OR I could plead guilty, be "convicted", and only get probation I would probably take the guilty verdict and probation.
Very few cases go to trial as most are settled in plea bargains. Being convicted is a choice, not proof of guilt. Just rational playing the justice roulette wheel.

 

[imyoda]

I've got a buddy who got into an argument with his wife. During the course of the argument he snatched the phone out of her hand. She grabbed it back and called the cops. He went to jail for domestic violence.

There's a guy down here who discovered that his wife was screwing one of her friends. The "friend" came over to the house and the guy blocked the door so he couldn't get in. The wife called the cops and the guy went to jail for domestic violence.

I don't know how things are in Texas but if the cops get called to a domestic disturbance somebody is going to go to jail whether there is a bruise, a bump or just plain hurt feelings. Before someone's rights are restricted there needs to be substantial evidence that the individual is a threat to their own safety or to the safety of someone else.

-edit-

I'm going to take this one step farther. This kind of ruling will disproportionately effect men. In many cases the guy is the one who has been suffering abuse but the day he decides he had enough he suddenly becomes a "domestic abuser".

These guys mo matter what should not b e allowed to own a gun just because don't know how to a real husband nor treat a woman............. Hot-head Six-Pack Billy Bob has no need for a gun

 

[shrubnose]

Clarence Thomas got on the court.

I don't agree with the man on a lot of things but I wouldn't call him retarded.

Justice Thomas isn't a legal genius but he is able to do the job that a Supreme Court Justice does.

If you have any proof to the contrary let's see it.

 

[Moot]

Clarence Thomas had a better class standing at Yale law than either member of the Clinton Crime family. and the democrat senate majority leader told the WH counsel (Keisler and Liberman) that if Thurgood Marshall was not replaced by a black, the dems would "bork" the nominee

Clarence was a below average student at Yale...even by Affirmative Action standards. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Hillary graduated with honors from Yale. So I guess it depends on what you mean by 'standing.' lol

 

[Moot]

I don't agree with the man on a lot of things but I wouldn't call him retarded.

Justice Thomas isn't a legal genius but he is able to do the job that a Supreme Court Justice does.

If you have any proof to the contrary let's see it.

Clarence finally asked his first question during oral argument in 10 years....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...7f2558-df00-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

He might not be retarded but there is something amiss about a judge that never asks a question in ten years.

 

[Phys251]

Domestic Violence is the new fraudulent charge that's going to be flung around to deny people their rights. Domestic Violence is the new marijuana possession.

Ah, so that's going to be the new line once we finally start treating domestic violence as serious of a problem as it is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Clarence was a below average student at Yale...even by Affirmative Action standards. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and Hillary graduated with honors from Yale. So I guess it depends on what you mean by 'standing.' lol

LOL Hillary didn't even make Cum Laude at her college. Thomas was in the top half of his class. Oh I forget, you were at Yale as I was. Professors I knew noted those two rarely attended class in their last two years.

 

[apdst]

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, he/she is too dangerous not to be in jail.

 

[Master PO]

If we would look all of the way back to the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court we could find more than one judge who shouldn't have been on the court and more than one ruling that shouldn't have been made.

thats true, i not saying anything different to even ones of the past.

to be a judge on the court, one MUST have read the federalist, and some decisions of the court are the direct opposite of what is stated in it.