In Voisine v. US, SCOTUS Just Ruled People Convicted of Domestic Violence Can't Buy Guns

[MohRokTah]

It's a bummer that two of the SCOTUS justices are complete morons:

In Voisine v. US, SCOTUS Just Ruled People Convicted of Domestic Violence Can't Buy Guns

On Monday, in the case of Voisine v. the United States, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision prohibiting people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing guns in a 6-2 vote, according to SCOTUSblog.

...

"This was the case of two Maine men who were convicted on state domestic violence charges and then found with firearms and charged with violating a federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from having firearms," SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe wrote in the live blog. "The question was whether their convictions qualified under the statute."

This decision follows this month's mass shooting in Orlando LGBTQ nightclub, Pulse, which claimed the lives of 49 victims and injured 53. In the wake of the tragedy, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) held a 15-hour filibuster and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) led a sit-in in the House of Representatives, both calling for action on gun regulations.

...

https://mic.com/articles/147147/in-voisine-v-u-s-scotus-just-ruled-people-convicted-of-domestic-violence-can-t-buy-guns?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.hLphAYIE8

[PeaceNikki]

1. Good.

[MohRokTah]

2. This ruling will directly save women's lives.

It's definitely a step in the right direction.

[PeaceNikki]

7. As a DA survivor, I know this firsthand.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. AND men's.

Sorry, but there are violent women who abuse men out there, too.
This ruling is great for all sexes/genders/ in that those most at risk may not be facing a gun in the hands of their abuser.

[leeroysphitz]

26. Phil Hartman... :( n/t

[roamer65]

3. This means the SCOTUS is reaffirming the right of government to regulate guns.

Government can't ban them completely, but they can most certainly highly regulate them.

[MohRokTah]

6. Yup.

I must agree, California is well within their rights to require background checks to purchase ammunition and Colorado is well within their rights to regulate magazine sizes, just like Wyoming is wihtin their rights to allow unfettered concealed carry with no permits or any other requirements.

Yes, it's a fifty state hodgepodge, but that's a design feature, not a constitutional bug.

[Stallion]

25. Slight Distinction-This Was a Violation of Federal Law After Being Convicted of a State Law

so there is some federal component to this decfision although again there must be a predicate state law conviction first

[Igel]

36. Nobody said otherwise.

The government has a "right" to regulate guns, but it has to be the result of a sufficient government interest.

The government can regulate free speech, it can regulate religion, it can regulate all sorts of things. But any infringement of any right has to be because there's a sufficiently weighty government interest at stake.

How impressive that interest has to be, or how slight, is ultimately up to courts and legislatures who, one assumes, in some way reflected enlightened public opinion.

In the same way, free speech and of the press, freedom of association can also be "highly regulated". Given the right government interest and courts that agree that it's sufficient, that is. The legislature and court could decide that if a few people are offended by something, that something cannot be said in public or distributed by any medium. All of a sudden, "Mr. Obama is a great president" might be deemed illegal and restricted. Or it could decide that you really have to be provoking to violence in the general case, or causing a real and present danger, so that "Run for the exits, there's a shooter!" qualifies.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. Not quite.

They decided that a law to that effect was not unconstitutional, and that it's a matter for the electorate to decide. They didn't rule outright to that effect.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Wow, two big wins on one day...

This one and the Texas abortion ruling are big steps in the protection of women and their rights.

[malaise]

33. This one is not getting enough coverage n/t

[Wounded Bear]

35. Yeah, but arguably it is a fairly narrow case...

affecting a small part of the overall gun safety issue. It probably won't lead directly to more restrictions on gun ownership by convicted abusers, but it should protect the laws already in place.

We really need some "turn in your weapons" laws covering those types of predators all over the country.

[Hekate]

8. There is yet hope for this country

[PoliticAverse]

9. "two of the SCOTUS justices are complete morons" - Sonia Sotomayor is a "complete moron" really? n/t

[AllTooEasy]

12. Ok, not "Complete"

...but she was today. She'll regain her senses quickly.

[Orrex]

20. That's still a bizarre assessment.

Was she a moron when she decided with the majority in Hellerstedt?

[backscatter712]

39. What was Sotomayor's rationale for her dissent? n/t

[mcar]

10. A good day for SCOTUS decisions

[lark]

11. Oh happy day!

This totally brings a smile to my face, such awesome news!!!!!!!

[Nitram]

13. SCOTUS DIDN'T rule that People Convicted of Domestic Violence Can't Buy Guns

They ruled that states can pass laws prohibiting People Convicted of Domestic Violence from Buying Guns.

[MohRokTah]

14. You are wrong.

They actually ruled that a federal law that prohibits anybody convicted of domestic violence from ever possessing a firearm is constitutional.

This law applies equally to all 50 states.

Beat your wife, lose your right to possess firearms for life.

[sl8]

23. Where are you seeing the constitutionality of the federal law being decided here?

I'm not seeing it. I see them saying that a conviction under a state law regarding reckless domestic assault
satisfies the "domestic violence" criteria (which includes “use . . . of physical force”) in the federal law.

A summary of the issue from SCOTUSBlog,
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/voisine-v-united-states/ :

Issue: Whether a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9).

From the decision,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf :

...
Held: A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under §922(g)(9). Pp. 4–12.
(a)
That conclusion follows from the statutory text. Nothing in the phrase “use. . . of physical force” indicates that §922(g)(9) distinguishes between domestic assaults committed knowingly or intentionally and those committed recklessly. Dictionaries consistently define the word “use” to mean the “act of employing” something. Accordingly, the force involved in a qualifying assault must be volitional; an involuntary motion, even a powerful one, is not naturally described as an active employment of force. See Castleman, 572 U. S., at ___. But nothing about the definition of “use” demands that theperson applying force have the purpose or practical certainty that it will cause harm, as compared with the understanding that it is substantially likely to do so. Nor does Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, which held that the “use” of force excludes accidents. Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another. The relevant text thus supports prohibiting petitioners, and otherswith similar criminal records, from possessing firearms. Pp. 5–8.
...

[Nitram]

15. OOps, I see you are correct. Thanks for the correction.

[MohRokTah]

16. Not a problem, it's all good.

[vintx]

17. Fantastic news.

Two good decisions to celebrate today

[dembotoz]

19. and from the deepest hottest portion of hell the tormented scalia screams noooooooooooooooooooooooo

[MohRokTah]

21. .

[libodem]

22. Excellent

WooHoo woohoo

[former9thward]

24. So Sotomayor is a "complete moron"?

Classy...

[FBaggins]

29. She isn't... but I do disagree with her on this one.

Someone who abuses a spouse through recklessness is probably someone who could cause that same person injury with a gun unintentionally.

[RAFisher]

31. I'm sick of this binary view of the Justicies of SCOTUS.

Last week people were mad at Breyer for agreeing with majority in the Utah v. Strieff case. Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent that people seemed to agree with. A week later now she's a moron. People should actually try to read the court's opinion before just calling people a moron. Unlike congress, which votes 'Aye' or 'Nay', SCOTUS actually has to write an opinion where they explain what they didn't agree with the majority on.

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

[former9thward]

27. The headline is not accurate.

The federal law has been in effect for about 20 years. It is not something new. The case was highly technical where the defendants were not challenging the law itself. They were asking the court to decide whether their previous convictions could have been considering coming from "reckless" conduct as opposed to "intentional" conduct and if that was the case then the federal law should not apply to them.

Those people who think this is some big deal have not read the decision.

[FBaggins]

28. Nope. That isn't what they ruled

It was already constitutional to restrict gun rights from someone guilty of domestic abuse.

This ruling was about whether or not one state's definition of domestic abuse which included actions that were "reckless", but NOT "knowingly" or "intentionally". That's different from most states, so there was a question regarding whether or not that offense triggered the already-constitutional federal restriction on gun ownership for such offenders.

[still_one]

30. I agree with the decision, but let me play devils advocate

If someone is convicted of a crime, serves the sentence for that crime, hasn't that person already paid for that crime, and why shouldn't they have their rights restored?

In a different issue some states try to prevent anyone who has been convicted of a felony, to lose their right to vote. Isn't it the same argument?

I am not surprised that Thomas was one the justices to dissent, but a little surprised that Sotomayor
dissented to the decision in part.

I haven't read the details of Sotomayor's reasons

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Now all they need to do is require a sanity test.

[smirkymonkey]

34. Good news again!

[Odin2005]

37. If anger issues cause you to commit a crime you should not be allowed access to weapons, period.

And I say that as somebody who is generally pro-gun.

[FBaggins]

38. That isn't the case here

The court challenge was specifically related to cases where there was a abuse that was due to recklessness, not anger issues causing "knowing" and/or "intentional" abuse. In some states, such behavior qualifies as domestic abuse, in others it does not... so the challenge was whether or not it was included in Congress' intent for that statute.

[Kurovski]

40. K&R (nt).