SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
No, Convicted Domestic Abusers Can't Own Guns, SCOTUS Affirms
'This is really important and relevant gun-control policy, as opposed to the xenophobic and largely irrelevant no-fly list.'
Jun 27, 2016
The US Supreme Court on Monday affirmed (pdf) a federal law that bars those convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault from owning a firearm.
In doing so, the court struck down an unusual argument from two Maine residents who pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges but asserted that their assaults on their former girlfriends had been "reckless" rather than knowing or intentional. Therefore, they argued, their actions should neither have qualified as a "use of physical force" nor triggered the federal gun ban.
Victim advocacy groups celebrated the court's decision.
"The Supreme Court today affirmed what we know--domestic violence escalates and is often deadly. Ensuring that convicted abusers do not have access to firearms will save lives," said Kim Gandy, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), in a statement.
"This is really important and relevant gun-control policy, as opposed to the xenophobic and largely irrelevant no-fly list," argued author and activist Rebecca Solnit on Facebook.
Indeed, NNEDV explained the rationale behind the federal legislation that bars convicted abusers from owning firearms:
Many perpetrators of domestic violence are often convicted only of misdemeanor crimes. In fact, the Supreme Court opinion states that 35 jurisdictions have assault laws extending to recklessness, and the "petitioners' reading risked allowing domestic abusers of all mental states to evade 922(g)(9)'s firearms ban." (p.9) Studies show these misdemeanor perpetrators often escalate the severity of their abuse over time, and the presence of a firearm can increase chances of homicide by nearly 500 percent.
Solnit added, "It's totally insane to argue that someone hit someone else 'recklessly,' as in not intentionally and knowingly and that therefore that assault does not constitute 'use of physical force.'"
The case garnered attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas broke his decade-long silence on the bench to ask questions demonstrating sympathy toward the two men's argument: "Can you give me--this is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"
Thomas then reiterated that the case referred to "a misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right."
Referring to those questions, Solnit wrote, "The creep seemed very concerned about the rights of men who beat women."
Thomas authored the dissent to the court's ruling, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor partially joined. The case was decided 6-2.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The US Supreme Court on Monday affirmed (pdf) a federal law that bars those convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault from owning a firearm.
In doing so, the court struck down an unusual argument from two Maine residents who pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges but asserted that their assaults on their former girlfriends had been "reckless" rather than knowing or intentional. Therefore, they argued, their actions should neither have qualified as a "use of physical force" nor triggered the federal gun ban.
Victim advocacy groups celebrated the court's decision.
"The Supreme Court today affirmed what we know--domestic violence escalates and is often deadly. Ensuring that convicted abusers do not have access to firearms will save lives," said Kim Gandy, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), in a statement.
"This is really important and relevant gun-control policy, as opposed to the xenophobic and largely irrelevant no-fly list," argued author and activist Rebecca Solnit on Facebook.
Indeed, NNEDV explained the rationale behind the federal legislation that bars convicted abusers from owning firearms:
Many perpetrators of domestic violence are often convicted only of misdemeanor crimes. In fact, the Supreme Court opinion states that 35 jurisdictions have assault laws extending to recklessness, and the "petitioners' reading risked allowing domestic abusers of all mental states to evade 922(g)(9)'s firearms ban." (p.9) Studies show these misdemeanor perpetrators often escalate the severity of their abuse over time, and the presence of a firearm can increase chances of homicide by nearly 500 percent.
Solnit added, "It's totally insane to argue that someone hit someone else 'recklessly,' as in not intentionally and knowingly and that therefore that assault does not constitute 'use of physical force.'"
The case garnered attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas broke his decade-long silence on the bench to ask questions demonstrating sympathy toward the two men's argument: "Can you give me--this is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"
Thomas then reiterated that the case referred to "a misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right."
Referring to those questions, Solnit wrote, "The creep seemed very concerned about the rights of men who beat women."
Thomas authored the dissent to the court's ruling, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor partially joined. The case was decided 6-2.
The US Supreme Court on Monday affirmed (pdf) a federal law that bars those convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault from owning a firearm.
In doing so, the court struck down an unusual argument from two Maine residents who pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges but asserted that their assaults on their former girlfriends had been "reckless" rather than knowing or intentional. Therefore, they argued, their actions should neither have qualified as a "use of physical force" nor triggered the federal gun ban.
Victim advocacy groups celebrated the court's decision.
"The Supreme Court today affirmed what we know--domestic violence escalates and is often deadly. Ensuring that convicted abusers do not have access to firearms will save lives," said Kim Gandy, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), in a statement.
"This is really important and relevant gun-control policy, as opposed to the xenophobic and largely irrelevant no-fly list," argued author and activist Rebecca Solnit on Facebook.
Indeed, NNEDV explained the rationale behind the federal legislation that bars convicted abusers from owning firearms:
Many perpetrators of domestic violence are often convicted only of misdemeanor crimes. In fact, the Supreme Court opinion states that 35 jurisdictions have assault laws extending to recklessness, and the "petitioners' reading risked allowing domestic abusers of all mental states to evade 922(g)(9)'s firearms ban." (p.9) Studies show these misdemeanor perpetrators often escalate the severity of their abuse over time, and the presence of a firearm can increase chances of homicide by nearly 500 percent.
Solnit added, "It's totally insane to argue that someone hit someone else 'recklessly,' as in not intentionally and knowingly and that therefore that assault does not constitute 'use of physical force.'"
The case garnered attention in February when Justice Clarence Thomas broke his decade-long silence on the bench to ask questions demonstrating sympathy toward the two men's argument: "Can you give me--this is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?"
Thomas then reiterated that the case referred to "a misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right."
Referring to those questions, Solnit wrote, "The creep seemed very concerned about the rights of men who beat women."
Thomas authored the dissent to the court's ruling, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor partially joined. The case was decided 6-2.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.