Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Supreme Court: No Guns For Those Guilty of Domestic Violence

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,539

    Supreme Court: No Guns For Those Guilty of Domestic Violence

    "WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday strengthened a federal law that bars anyone convicted of domestic violence from possessing a gun.
    In a 9-0 decision, the high court said the ban extended to anyone who had pleaded guilty to at least a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, even in cases in which there was no proof of violent acts or physical injury.....

    "It 'is an important victory for women, children and families across the country who will continue to be protected by strong, sensible federal laws that keep domestic violence abusers from obtaining guns,' said Jonathan Lowy, a lawyer for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'It is a telling indictment of the gun lobby's extremism that not a single justice agreed with its call to explode a gaping hole in the law that would have enabled wife-beaters to buy and possess guns in many states.'

    "Citing Justice Department data, Sotomayor said the nation 'witnesses more than a million acts of domestic violence, and hundreds of deaths from domestic violence, each year.' "
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#ixzz2xM7WJf1l

    Great news! Not a single justice agreed with the arguments of gun lobby extremists.
    "Indeed, not a word in the constitutional text even arguably supports the Court’s overwrought and novel description of the Second Amendment as 'elevat[ing] above all other interests' 'the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.' Ante,at 63."
    -Justice Stevens on the Heller ruling

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    It should be noted that Anton Scalia wrote the dissent disagreeing with the notion of the interpretation of domestic violence used in the case claiming that when the meaning is extended to cover everything including name calling then the definition becomes meaningless. This at least suggests that while the court is willing to regard the prohibition as constitutional that does not mean they agree when an extensive expansion of what some consider to be domestic violence.

    Furthermore it remains to be seen what the political fallout will be. Due to the state law in question requiring no proof to sustain a charge of domestic violence there is nothing to prevent a husband from claiming his wife has engaged in domestic violence and have her charged under the statute. Ultimately this ruling could create a perfect formula for the manufacture of victims of stalking who are legally barred from defending themselves for the duration of their natural lives.

    If such fallout occurs then this ruling will likely be decried as a mistake and the statute in question will need to be changed.

    At the moment the matter is only focused on women who are victims. But in divorce proceedings there is nothing to stop the more financially successful parent -often times the father- from gaining custody of the child and petitioning the court for child support and alimony from the less financially successful parent even if they cannot afford to pay it.

    Anything can eventually be weaponized and used against those its intended to protect. Not requiring actual proof before proceeding with charges means anyone of a vindictive nature can proceed as they see fit.
    Last edited by Xenamnes; 03-29-2014 at 09:24 AM.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •