In other SCOTUS news, A domestic-violence conviction is a misdemeanor crime of violence for purposes

[justiceischeap]

of limiting access to firearms.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf

So that means it's against Federal Law for people who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence to have guns.

[sufrommich]

1. More great news. nt

[frazzled]

2. Another victory for women

As well as some men who are admittedly victims of domestic violence as well.

[UTUSN]

3. R#6 & K

[Orrex]

4. Whew! I misunderstood your subject line and thought that it meant the opposite.

Two great rulings for women today!

Sadly, one can't help wondering what a Scalia-free court might have accomplished during Obama's presidency.

[Igel]

5. And has been for a while.

Congress decided that a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction was enough. If you're convicted of domestic violence you can't own a variety of firearms. the interpretation was that through intentional acts of violence you were to be stripped of the right to a firearm because you might be a recidivist. For a couple of decades domestic violence was grounds for this, but not a misdemeanor count.

Note that this change took an act of Congress. And it was Constitutional before this case.

However, the question before the court was whether reckless violence had the same consequence as intentional, which was clearly intended to be covered by Congress.

The court found that the language of the federal statute didn't distinguish between mere disregard of personal safety and intent to harm another. In other words, while Congress closed a loophole resulting from a case with intentional or knowing domestic violence, the language covers all cases of misdemeanor domestic violence. SCOTUS denied that reckless domestic violence wasn't covered by the law.

That's about it.

Now, the issue arose because the man involved was convicted under a statute in Maine that explicitly made the distinction between intentionally, recklessly, and knowingly harming somebody. I don't know how many states have reckless domestic violence as a misdemeanor domestic violence offense or as something else entirely. Depends on the state's law. I could imagine that domestic violence might be defined as "intentional or knowing harm done" to a family member, so that if I do something reckless and hurt my wife unintentionally it wouldn't be domestic violence.

Really, details matter.