Posted: 11/11/2008 12:44:06 AM EDT
|
FYI
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus11-2008nov11,0,2414660.story Reporting from Washington –– Thousands convicted of a misdemeanor for threatening or assaulting a spouse or girlfriend could once again own guns because of a flaw in the federal law.
That prospect grew more likely Monday after the Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing to a government lawyer who argued that a crime of domestic violence should result in a loss of gun rights. Neither families nor police officers should face "the powder keg situation of a domestic offender with a gun," said Nicole Saharsky, a Justice Department lawyer. But she ran into sharp questioning from justices who said the law was badly written. Congress in 1996 sought to strengthen the laws against domestic violence. Before, only persons convicted of violent felonies in such situations lost their rights to own a gun. Going a step further, lawmakers adopted an amendment to take away gun rights for those who had a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" on their records. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), the amendment's sponsor, said he was closing a loophole. In domestic violence cases, local prosecutors often agree to have defendants plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault or battery, which usually calls for less than a year in jail, he said. "There is no reason for someone who beats their wives or abuses their children to own a gun. When you combine wife beaters and guns, the end result is more death," Lautenberg said in the Senate before the amendment was enacted. But last year, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia cast doubt on the law's reach. Its judges decided the federal gun ban did not cover misdemeanor convictions involving assault or battery at home. Instead, it said the federal ban applied only to those convicted under a state's domestic violence law. That would make the federal gun law "a dead letter in two-thirds of the states," according to the government's lawyer. Saharsky said most states do not have misdemeanor laws specifically targeting domestic violence. Justice Antonin Scalia was unswayed by that argument. "People are governed by the law that is passed, not by the law that Congress intended to pass," he said. He and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the law as written appeared to apply only to domestic violence measures, not the more common laws against assault and battery. Scalia wrote the 5-4 opinion in June which held for the first time that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to have a gun. He said then that the decision did not shield criminals who committed serious crimes with a gun. But during Monday's argument, Scalia said possessing a gun was "lawful conduct," and a wife-beating charge lodged against a West Virginia man was "not that serious an offense." The government lawyer shot back that the defendant "hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked her in the ribs. . . . " "Then he should have been charged with a felony," Scalia interjected, "but he wasn't." The defendant, Randy Hayes, pleaded guilty in 1994 to misdemeanor battery of his then-wife. Ten years later, police responded to a domestic violence call from his home and learned he had owned or sold several guns. He was convicted of illegal gun possession under the 1996 amendment. The case of U.S. vs. Hayes does not turn on the 2nd Amendment, but instead on how the justices read the words of the 1996 law. "This statute is a mess," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy commented at one point. Roberts noted that California, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio have misdemeanor domestic violence laws. People convicted under those measures would not benefit from a ruling that limited the reach of the federal law, he said. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said a ruling for Hayes "could re-arm thousands of convicted domestic violence abusers." About 14% "of all police officer deaths occur during a response to domestic violence calls," the group said. On the other side, the Second Amendment Foundation said the "fundamental right" to own a gun should not be taken away over a misdemeanor. Savage is a Times staff writer. [email protected] |
|
Quoted:
"Then he should have been charged with a felony," Scalia interjected, "but he wasn't."
See, that wasn't so hard. At least Scalia gets it. Lautenberg, not so much. Oh, Lautenberg got it, he just wasn't honest. It was about disarming people, not protecting women. He wanted to put the NRA on the horns of the "Protecting wifebeaters" dilemma. Little warm, aren't you, Lautenberg? |
|
Quoted:
I'm surprised they're going to do anything at all with it. I'm glad they are because it's a BS law... A woman blocks the door so the man can't leave and he moves her aside and guess what? DV! I was almost arrested for DV a couple months ago for telling my ex to go to hell.. Verbal abuse could be construed as DV... Now, I understand some guy who slugs his wife should be put away. But, moving her aside so you can "eject" shouldn't be a crime... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised they're going to do anything at all with it. I'm glad they are because it's a BS law... A woman blocks the door so the man can't leave and he moves her aside and guess what? DV! I was almost arrested for DV a couple months ago for telling my ex to go to hell.. Verbal abuse could be construed as DV... Now, I understand some guy who slugs his wife should be put away. But, moving her aside so you can "eject" shouldn't be a crime... +1 I know someone who got charged with DV because his wife wouldnt let him leave and he called her a few choice words told her where to go and what to do when she got there. Then he climbed out the window and left, she called the cops etc. Anyways he got charged with DV but Michigan has a policy/law that if its your first DV you can do this diversion program and once you complete it, its like it never happened and you get your guns back. So at least people get somewhat of a second chance here. |
|
The Lautenberg Amendment is a prime example of how guns will be “confiscated” from Americans (if it ever happens).
There won’t be door to door confiscations. Folks who worry (or fantasize) about the .gov going door to door are being diverted from the real threat which is a divide and conquer strategy by the anti-gun crowd. For those old enough to remember, The Lautenberg Amendment got plenty of support from gun owners. The law was sold to the public as something that was only going to affect a few shit head-wife beating-assholes. Then the law gets passed, and guess what! The neibours call popo because Joe average and his wife are arguing, Joe ends up with s a DV misdemeanor for yelling at his wife and looses his 2A rights! Many of the retards that supported the law are too stupid or proud to admit their support was wrong, and they keep trying to justify it. Gun owners really need to stop supporting crap like the Lautenberg Amendment. 
This post isn’t directed towards anyone in particular who has posted in the thread, I just felt like venting a bit. |
|
Quoted:
"Then he should have been charged with a felony," Scalia interjected, "but he wasn't."
See, that wasn't so hard. At least Scalia gets it. Lautenberg, not so much. Yep. misdemeanor crimes with felony penalties. make it a felony if it's so bad. The worst thing is people used to plea out for misdemeanor assault for DV, but now can't own guns because of a misdemeanor from 10 years prior. |
|
I think this says it all:
"This statute is a mess" Heard Scalia speak once at Univ of Balt. Man was he awesome. Main point - rule on the statute passed, not on what they wanted it to say. He had a Latin term for that. Entertaining, personable and drove himself in a Lincoln. I'd like to get his autograph on a copy of Heller. |
|
Quoted:
How did this affect people in the military? If they had a DV on their record were they discharged or restricted from handling firearms? They could only have access to crew served weapons, or as part of a general weapons draw, vs individual issue, like for MPs. |
|
My mom falls under this. My sister was ditching school, and so she went to find where she was. Found her with a bunch of friends at Denny's eating breakfast, and took her back to school. My mom slapped her because she was getting mouthy about being caught ditching. School see's a red mark and calls CPS. I was in class at another school and got pulled out of class to go talk to this idiot. Asks if I get hit...blah blah blah.
Fucked up thing is my sister was ditching a lot, and the school told my mom she was probably at Denny's where she actually was. They knew her and her group of friends went there but NEVER called my mom about it. Punishment was a year on probabation and she had to take this stupid anger management class. Gun rights gone forever.... 
|