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.'
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 are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.