Justice Thomas Asks: Why Are Second Amendment Rights So Easily Taken Away?

Forbes ^ | March 23, 2016 | George Leef

[reaganaut1]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his silence during oral arguments. He has explained that he doesn’t think he learns much about a case that hasn’t already been covered in the briefs for the contending parties plus the numerous amicus briefs that explore many more aspects of the case. He prefers to listen and allow the lawyers to argue without further interruption.

Justice Thomas had not asked a question during oral arguments since 2006 when, during the arguments in Voisine v. United States on February 29, he posed a question to the government’s counsel, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein.

Immediately, the anti-Thomas press, always eager to portray the justice as a clueless incompetent (after all, he rejects most of the leftist notions about the role of government), indulged in nasty headlines such as “It Speaks!” Imagine the furor if a leftist icon were called “it.”

Exactly what is Voisine about and what did Justice Thomas ask?

The case deals with a seemingly dry question of statutory interpretation: Does a misdemeanor crime that requires only a showing of recklessness qualify as a crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S. Code Sections 921 (a)(33)(A) and 922 (g)(9)?

That latter part of the U.S. criminal code is known at the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a.k.a the Lautenberg Amendment, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It makes it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor ever to have anything to do with firearms: shipping or transporting them, owning or using them, even possessing ammunition.

One strike and you’re out under this law.

[zeestephen]

Thanks for posting the article.

This is a really interesting legal issue.

[zeestephen]

Question to anyone...

The article does not specifically describe the misdemeanor that was committed.

Does anyone know an example of what someone has to do to be charged with “Reckless” Domestic Violence?

And, yes, all comical and sarcastic replies will be accepted.

[coydog]

That’s the true purpose of gun control. It’s not to combat criminals, terrorists and lunatics, for if they really want guns, they will have them, law or no law. It’s to keep honest people dependent on the government for protection from criminals, terrorists and lunatics. I think one of your late senators — Metzenbaum, was it — as much as admitted this to journalists “off the record”

[lentulusgracchus]

HUGE implications here.

Sure. This is part, by the way, of Hillary's Violence Against Women Act. Think she's not an ideologue? Anyone who harbored illusions had better discard them pronto. She's the hardcore one, of the Dynamic Duo.

It's the first and only instance I know of in which a person convicted of a misdemeanor can lose his civil rights -- and of course the one that Beastwoman wants to strip away is the key to all the others.

[lentulusgracchus]

I think one of your late senators — Metzenbaum, was it — as much as admitted this to journalists “off the record” [keeping the People dependent on police]

Metzenbaum was the malefactor-in-chief at the three-ring circus that blackguarded Clarence Thomas at his confirmation hearing. Metzenbaum was the one spilling derogatory stuff from the "raw" FBI files to the lap-it-up-yum-yum liberal Media.

Ted Kennedy was the enabler and sounding board ("OHHH, I'm so disappointed in this nominee -- I didn't KNOW that, did you KNOW that about this disgusting person?"), Joe Biden was the ringmaster who allowed that shameful garbagefest to continue in public (which was Metzenbaum's whole point in dumping stuff), but Metzenbaum was the Garbage Godfather who maligned vilely and with impunity one of the finest Justices ever to sit on the Court.

[lentulusgracchus]

"The rest of the story":

In the two cases from Maine joined in Voisine, the defendants had been convicted of reckless domestic violence misdemeanors and were later found in possession of firearms, leading to their prosecution for violating the federal gun ban. They moved to have the cases dismissed on the grounds that the Maine statute, under which someone can be convicted for intentional, knowing or merely reckless conduct isn’t covered by the Lautenberg amendment. The trial court ruled against their motions and they appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed with one judge dissenting.

From the linked article. The meat of the issue.

[sphinx]

Why does the left thing Second Amendment rights can be so easily cancelled? Because the left believes the penumbra can taketh away as easily as giveth. All that matters is the will to power, as long as power is in leftist hands. Of course, put a conservative in charge and leftist judges will do a 180.