Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court rules conviction bars West Tennessee man from owning gun
Memphis Commercial Appeal ^ | 03/26/2014 | Michael Collins

Posted on 03/26/2014 9:01:45 AM PDT by GIdget2004

Edited 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 mans 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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: guncontrol; lautenburg

1 posted on 03/26/2014 9:01:45 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Here’s an article with a bit more information on the case:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/high-court-bolsters-domestic-violence-gun-ban-law/2014/03/26/1dd4bbcc-b4f5-11e3-bab2-b9602293021d_story.html


2 posted on 03/26/2014 9:03:09 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
wow... unanimous ...

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.

3 posted on 03/26/2014 9:05:02 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

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.


4 posted on 03/26/2014 9:05:26 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Frank Lautenberg’s foul legacy.


5 posted on 03/26/2014 9:05:41 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
Two words.
Private Sale.

Not yet illegal (no potential stings).

6 posted on 03/26/2014 9:06:50 AM PDT by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

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.


7 posted on 03/26/2014 9:08:26 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi - Revolution is a'brewin!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

‘Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.’....Heller vs. DC....Thanks Scalia.


8 posted on 03/26/2014 9:09:26 AM PDT by Theoria (End Socialism : No more GOP and Dem candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
All US residents are criminals,

as the state has no power over an honest man.

9 posted on 03/26/2014 9:11:22 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

It doesn’t actually bar him from owning a gun at all. It bars him from state approval for owning a gun.


10 posted on 03/26/2014 9:11:53 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

Paraphrasing, Mark Twain ... Hide your guns boys, the legislature’s back in session.


11 posted on 03/26/2014 9:12:07 AM PDT by OldNavyVet (Looking forward to November elections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

Kind of funny that you blame Lautenberg but when the Repubs had control they didn’t life a finger to repeal it.


12 posted on 03/26/2014 9:13:27 AM PDT by trapped_in_LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

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.


13 posted on 03/26/2014 9:13:51 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

And this why requiring permission from federal masters to exercise a natural right is insidious.


14 posted on 03/26/2014 9:16:11 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trapped_in_LA

Lautenberg’s NAME is on that legislation, regardless of the Republicans’ inaction.


15 posted on 03/26/2014 9:26:07 AM PDT by Charles Martel (Endeavor to persevere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
*Misdmeanor* domestic violence.Hmmmm,IIRC littering and jaywalking are misdemeanors too.
16 posted on 03/26/2014 9:27:26 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

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.


17 posted on 03/26/2014 9:30:10 AM PDT by ClayinVA ("Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClayinVA
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.

18 posted on 03/26/2014 9:47:30 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

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.


19 posted on 03/26/2014 10:05:09 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004; All
... had argued the federal law ...

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.

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control

20 posted on 03/26/2014 10:09:58 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel

“Enhanced” Lautenturd Amendment... coming to MN soon:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3137325/posts

Read the statute on what constitutes 5th degree domestic assault in MN-in most cases it’s far from anything close to “beating” anyone or hitting anyone, yet will be included in the bill proposed in current form.

This is like giving someone a DUI AND taking their car for being at .02 BAC ( only a driving is not a right )


21 posted on 03/26/2014 10:18:07 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: andyk

personally, if you commit a crime wth a firearm, esp violent crime, you’ve shown you cant be trusted with guns, and in the old days the law would sentence you to death so you’d have no chance to ever have a gun again.

as we dont do this anymore those violent criminals who have used guns in their crimes should not be allowed to have guns again. until we execute criminals for violent crimes again, and quickly like the old days, if they are released they shouldn’t be able to get guns again.

if you do a crime that doesnt use a gun and isn’ t violent, you shouldn’ t lose your gun rights. if you get charged with domestic violence and it’s not violent, but was trumped up like yelling or shoving or pushing someone off/away from you, it has noting to do with gun rghts and that shouldn’ t ever come into play. loss of gun rights should only come into play when guns are germaine to the crime committed.


22 posted on 03/26/2014 10:25:50 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

You’re splitting hairs and walking right into the lib argument. You’re a free man, or you’re not. I don’t believe in a caste system of natural rights.


23 posted on 03/26/2014 11:25:42 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004
So by their standards he can not own a "Firearm" and applying (that is to say take out of context what the law says)

U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter B › Part I › § 5845
26 U.S. Code § 5845 - Definitions
Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Updates
prev | next For the purpose of this chapter—
(a) Firearm
The term “firearm” means
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device. The term “firearm” shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device)
which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other
characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

Firearm

24 posted on 03/26/2014 11:46:30 AM PDT by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andyk

no. what i am saying is unless we go back to the justice system that worked, because violent felons were executed within a week or to of sentencing,

there would be no discussion of whether someone who was a felon could have a gun or not.

not a violent felon == keep’guns.

violent felon == executed felon.


25 posted on 03/26/2014 1:50:25 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Define a violent felon worthy of execution and cite the period of time you are referring to when this condition was present. It occurs to me that you are broadening the class of those eligible for execution to those who commit any felony involving violence, which was not the case. Imprisonment for a lengthy period based upon the crime was intended to repay “the debt to society” and allow the reformed reprobate the opportunity to rejoin that society. It appears execution plays a larger than needed role in your concept of justice. Be careful what you wish for.

“...unless we go back to the justice system that worked, because violent felons were executed within a week or to of sentencing,...”


26 posted on 03/26/2014 3:11:58 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GIdget2004

He plead to domestic violence. Just as felons lose the right to vote he lost the Rtkaba.This will come back to bite the left when they argue in Scotia that felons can not lose the right to vote.


27 posted on 03/26/2014 3:20:29 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chulaivn66

I am talking about violent felons who use guns in the commission of the specific crimes they commit. Especially if they injure or murder someone during those crimes or attempting to flee.

They have proven by abusing the right, they cannot be trusted with it. Unless they are executed for those crimes, if they have a chance to be let out, they should not be allowed to have guns again.


28 posted on 03/26/2014 3:25:08 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Okay, no offense, but now define “violent”. It’s just too slippery. Look, if you don’t like the fact that we let people out who shouldn’t be out, don’t take that out on free citizens. Not trying to argue - I know what you’re trying to do - I just think we can’t do that if we want to remain free.


29 posted on 03/26/2014 4:15:48 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

You haven’t cited the period you mentioned when those conditions were applied and additionally where they were applied.

By stating, “Be careful what you wish for.”, consider that when you codify the death penalty and its execution time to cover a broader range of offenders, the likelihood of violent resistance to apprehension by authorities will result along with the danger to the general populace suffering from the activity. “Top of the world Ma! Top of the world!” (Cagney- “White Heat”)

All of the criterion necessary to sentence offenders for the crimes they commit has been well thought out and recorded. Application of the appropriate sentencing guidelines often falls short of the recommendations due in large part to judicial mental meanderings. But after a man has not been executed for his crime because execution would be too extreme a punishment, and he is released into society after serving time in prison to repay his debt, his rights, all of them, should be fully restored. Doing so reinforces the notion that he has paid his debt, realized the error of his ways and is now free to live a life of benefit to himself, his family and the society he has rejoined, without the stigma of his prior conviction impairing his ability to persevere and succeed. People err. Sometimes grievously. Some so greatly that execution is warranted. But I would sooner deal with a possible repeat offender than sacrifice his right to self-defense and the defense of members of his family in the event he had reformed completely. But then I am a capable man and without fear.

The State cannot solve all of our problems and is far more involved in our affairs than our health as a society allows and calling for another law that will be arbitrarily interpreted and applied will prove more confounding than our present situation.

Restricting firearms possession restricts freedom and our ability to defend our lives and those of our loved ones. Never mind the defense of our country. We’ve already lost that.


30 posted on 03/26/2014 4:28:25 PM PDT by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: andyk

well then putmup a sign and encourage all the violent, released folks to arm up and gun you down. that will really put the pin in your argument.

it is clear that folks who have demonstrated they will abuse their 2a rights, by doing so committing violent acts - armed burglary, armed robbery, felony assault, felony battery, attempted murder, murder,

ought not be allowed them again. as long as they could be let back out into society. i’m not talking about the guy who walks into a store and doesn’t see a sign, or even on school grounds, or has a bullet in his pocket somewhere,’or a guy travelling between states while armed, or any stupid little procedural thing where she’s not hurting anyone. or even for crimes that may be technically felonies but aren’t violent ones.

it has nothing to do with buying into anything liberal. it has everything to do with narrowing the scope to only people who commit violent crimes with guns. he ones who’ve proven they will abuse that right. i am against zero-tolerance logic and you position is more liberal zero-tolerance, non-thinking, than mine.

when these people’commit crimes again with guns and’murder’people the blood will be on your hands and you will have to answer their loved’ones asto why it wasn’t common sense not to allow guns back i to these criminals’ hands again. the blood will be on you. but you’ll have your precious zero-tolerance non-think re-arm the violent felons that get out of jail law.


31 posted on 03/26/2014 5:18:15 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
it has nothing to do with buying into anything liberal. it has everything to do with narrowing the scope to only people who commit violent crimes with guns. he ones who’ve proven they will abuse that right. i am against zero-tolerance logic and you position is more liberal zero-tolerance, non-thinking, than mine.

I just think that people who are determined to commit crimes are not going to be deterred by background checks. Only the little people. I think free men should not be prevented from protecting themselves. You disagree - you just don't want to say it in so many words.

when these people’commit crimes again with guns and’murder’people the blood will be on your hands and you will have to answer their loved’ones asto why it wasn’t common sense not to allow guns back i to these criminals’ hands again.

Your argument holds water if you currently answer to loved ones who are mourning victims who were killed by criminals constrained by your current system.

But seriously, you said my argument was liberal. This argument above is the epitome of a liberal, emotional argument.
32 posted on 03/26/2014 5:45:48 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: andyk

we agree to disagree. move on.


33 posted on 03/26/2014 6:20:20 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
we agree to disagree. move on.

Sorry man, it's easy to get hooked in. :) I appreciate your thoughts. You made me think.
34 posted on 03/26/2014 8:33:58 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: andyk

no prob. :-)


35 posted on 03/26/2014 9:19:11 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson