Skip to comments.U.S. Supreme Court rules conviction bars West Tennessee man from owning gun
Posted on 03/26/2014 9:01:45 AM PDT by GIdget2004Edited on 03/26/2014 12:01:11 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a West Tennessee manís conviction on a misdemeanor domestic assault charge bars him from owning a gun.
James Alvin Castleman of Huntingdon, in Carroll County, had argued the federal law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun should not apply to him because he was not actually accused of physical force.
(Excerpt) Read more at commercialappeal.com ...
Here’s an article with a bit more information on the case:
so much for “shall not be infringed”
I guess using the logic of this ruling... the government could pass a law tomorrow that anyone who exhales carbon dioxide (aka breathes) has committed a crime and automatically loses their right to keep and bear arms.
Tyranny comes in all flavors... This one is Black Robed.
Why? Because Domestic Violence can be used as a catch-all in an arrest at your home. And the bar can be set absurdly low too.
Frank Lautenberg’s foul legacy.
Not yet illegal (no potential stings).
I think many of the actions the court take as acts of domestic violence as well, from eminent domain to abortion, spying to healthcare, the victims aka legal US citizens, suffer in silence.. or will after the internet is turned off,, there is no redress , no shame for their actions,, no justice.. jmo.
Do their acts involve ‘violence’ per se? You be the Judge.
‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.’....Heller vs. DC....Thanks Scalia.
as the state has no power over an honest man.
It doesn’t actually bar him from owning a gun at all. It bars him from state approval for owning a gun.
Paraphrasing, Mark Twain ... Hide your guns boys, the legislature’s back in session.
Kind of funny that you blame Lautenberg but when the Repubs had control they didn’t life a finger to repeal it.
This one is for all you folks who believe “criminals”, should be banned from possessing firearms. Soon, you’ll be a criminal. Well, you already are, you just may not know it yet.
And this why requiring permission from federal masters to exercise a natural right is insidious.
Lautenberg’s NAME is on that legislation, regardless of the Republicans’ inaction.
don’t know how they reconcile this with Heller, but that is SCOTUS where they twist the law to get the ending that they want.
Heller said Americans have a right to individual, private ownership of firearms but that right is not unlimited.
Over the next several years, there will be more cases out of SCOTUS further defining/limiting this right.
No God given “RIGHT” is limited. What the supreme’s have wrought in Heller vs DC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL if it is used to prohibit gun ownership. if not for NICS no one would be the wiser, but the prohibitions are only going to increase with time unless the people and states get control of the out of control Federal Leviathan.
If I understood Heller it really just reestablished the individual right to bear arms.
With this decision, you turn a law abiding citizen into a radical fire breathing hate monger who will be the warpath but probably under constant surveillance.
Regarding any case decision involving a federal law, the states need to amend the Constitution to require the Supreme Court to officially and publicly cite specific constitutional clauses which reasonably indicate powers granted to Congress by the states to make a given law in the first place.
Note that pro-2A citizens would probably have liked gun rights to be include in 1A's list of powers prohibited to Congress. However, since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had included clauses in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section8-limited powers which reasonably give Congress the power to regulate arms for military purposes, the delegates couldn't turn around and prohibit gun-regulating powers to Congress altogether.
That said, it remains that none of the gun-related clauses in Section 8 reasonably apply to domestic violence imo. So the Supreme Court would be hard-pressed to find any constitutional clause to justify why federal laws which address guns in the context of domestic violence should exist in the first place imo.
In fact, note that some people, including me, attribute many modern but constitutionally-questionable federal gun laws to Constitution-ignoring FDR.