The U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a case involving whether persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors should be prohibited from possessing guns.
The case involves James Castleman, who in 2001 pleaded guilty under Tennessee law to one count of misdemeanor domestic violence against the mother of his child. In 2009, Castleman was found in possession of several guns, which was prohibited by a 1996 law that made it illegal for those who have misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence involving physical force or a deadly weapon to possess guns.
Allegedly, Castleman was purchasing weapons and selling them illegally. An appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio ruled that the federal law does not apply in Castleman’s case because his domestic violence conviction did not involve physical force.
What's your opinion? The author goes on the explain that normally domestic abuse escalates over time, so a conviction that does not involve physical force is likely to be a precursor of what will eventually happen.
The other problem she mentions is the plea bargaining system.
And, interestingly, as a side note, Florida allows convicted domestic abusers to get their guns back after three years. How about that?