And "domestic violence" will eventually be defined down to
having an argument with your spouse about whose turn
it is to do the dishes.
Back door gun confiscation. Like in California. Soon to be applied to misdemeanor domestic complaints and coming to a state near you.
In Hell they call him “Laughing Lautenberg”.
BFD!! Guns will always be there, if you have $$$. If not, there is an axe, a hammer, a kitchen knife, a car, a rope, a box cutter, etc. etc. Do you really think the politicians give a crap about the gun violence? The only violence they are worried about is the one directed against them if they screw up grabbing too much power for them selves and no one else. Liberté, égalité, fraternité !!!!
That’s better than Connecticut state law, where if your “other” gets an order of protection, you lose your guns.
How’s that for due process? A vindictive spouse gets to take them away.
“She fell”
The conclusion of the opinion:
“The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the “use . . . of physical force” against a domestic relation. §921(a)(33)(A). That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly—i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm. And the state-law backdrop to that provision, which included misdemeanor assault statutes covering reckless conduct in a significant majority of jurisdictions, indicates that Congress meant just what it said. Each petitioner’s possession of a gun, following a conviction under Maine law for abusing a domestic partner, therefore violates §922(g)(9). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.”
Dissenters were Justices Thomas and Sotomayor
---Justice Antonin Scalia
I have mixed feelings about this case. It is so easy to go through life without being convicted of domestic violence. If things start getting that weird in your marriage, just leave. Forget about who is right and who is wrong. Just leave and work things out later.
Hey! If felons can vote, then they certainly can buy and own guns.
Weird, too. The most conservative and most liberal court members were the sole dissenters.
I’d say this is a good precedent for conservatives, if there was any evidence the Supreme Court cared a rat’s ass about precedent. If the USSC says that you can have your basic rights stripped away if you commit a crime, exactly how will the attempt to nullify laws against inmates voting work?
In fact, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified, in wide language, that powers that the states have not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate civilian-use firearms in this example, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
It is disturbing that federal gun laws which regulate civilian arms don’t seem to have appeared in the books until the time of the FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at the time infamous for making laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
What I see going on with the decision by the judicial branch concerning possibly unconstitutional federal gun laws is possible gradual usurpations of state powers by the feds which James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had warned us about.
”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” —James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” —Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
”The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all.” —Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, including putting a stop to unconstitutional federal interference in state affairs.
Also consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Congress prohibited people convicted of domestic assault misdemeanors from owning firearms. The two people in question were convicted of misdemeanors according to the definition of Maine law. However, the Maine law they were charged under included crimes of negligence in the same definition. So they were arguing that their convictions didn’t provide proof that they had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor as it was defined by Congressional law.
The Court did not consider whether one could have their civil rights taken away for committing mere misdemeanors; the accused conceded that point. Nor did it consider whether gun crimes are within the scope of Congress’ lawmaking.
Apart from those issues, my sympathies lie with the U.S. in this matter. Congress can be faulted for failure to define its own laws adequately. And when they define something inadequately, regardless of their intent, I believe the courts must read the definition that most limits federal authority.
Further, if it is unclear whether a state law fits within the intent of a Congressional definition, again, courts must read the definition that most limits federal authority. But the federal government and the state government both described the crime as a misdemeanor.
It seems what the defendants were trying to do is to nullify the Congressional law with respect to Maine, by saying that Maine had no law which criminalized deliberate and only deliberate domestic abuse. I don’t see how it’s reasonable to fault Congress for ambiguity in meaning on the fact Maine covers both deliberate and neglectful domestic abuse under the same statute. The only ambiguity here is whether the defendants were actually convicted of neglectful domestic abuse. But they’re not making the claim that they were, only that it shouldn’t matter.
I don’t see where they have a case. In fact, it’s so inconceivable that the issue be brought up when it is not clear that they were convicted of merely neglectful abuse, that I’d almost guess that whoever funded this case to the SCOTUS was an enemy of gun rights. Pick your test cases well, conservatives!
Petitioner Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend
in violation of §207 of the Maine Criminal Code... Petitioner William Armstrong pleaded guilty to assaulting his wife.
So he committed the very crime which Congress said means he loses his gun rights. Yet he’s not challenging Congress’ right to pass such a law, merely claiming it doesn’t apply to him because Maine’s criminal code — despite his pleading — doesn’t require the crime to be deliberate, whereas Congress’ law said the crime must be deliberate.
MY RULING: Taking the presumption that the law is valid in the first place, of course it applies to him.
HOWEVER, I only concur. I object to the ruling, which states ‘Consider Maine’s law, which criminalizes “intentionally, knowingly
or recklessly” injuring another. Assuming that statute defines a single
crime, petitioners’ view that §921(a)(33)(A) requires at least a
knowing mens rea...’
The assumption that the statute NECESSARILY defines a single crime, is an absurd assumption. I believe the exact intent of the use of three adverbs (“intentionally, knowingly or recklessly”) is to relieve the prosecution of the necessity of determining which distinct crimes took place; in the case of felonies, an intentional crime is a more severe degree of crime than a reckless crime. And I would certainly imagine that a judge should weight the intent when deciding punishment; the purpose of lumping them into a single statute is that horrifically severe but reckless abuse (leaving an infant outside for days in the winter) isn’t necessarily a lesser degree than an intentional abuse (smacking someone’s hand away from the radio dial).
So why did Congress specify that abuse must be deliberate? Because they intended to prohibit reckless abusers from owning guns, too, but forgot that their definition singled out deliberate abusers? The court’s presumption is certainly counter-intuitive! I’d argue the intent was to say that someone capable of deliberate, violent acts should never be able to get a gun ever again, but if someone has committed an outrageous act of stupidity, then it’s up to states to decide under what conditions it may make sense to issue a gun permit.
What doesn’t the court understand about MUST NOT BE INFRINGED Sounds like simple language to me.