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.
Three key members of the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court: Justice Antonin Scalia; Chief Justice John Roberts; and Justice Anthony Kennedy. (From the official Supreme Court photo in 2010.)
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?
If you're asking how the court ought to rule, the appellate court seems to have stuck to the language of the statute. I haven't looked at all the language or the appellate decision, though--I'm just looking at the information in your post: if the Lautenberg Amendment only forbids possession by those with convictions involving violence or force, then a conviction that doesn't include violence or force shouldn't be covered.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a problem with that, then fix Lautenberg's sloppy drafting.
If you're talking about what should be the rule for spouse and child abusers, rather than what the Supreme Court should decide, I'm in favor of floggings for first offenders and ropes for recidivists.
Yes, but what should be done about the non-violent abusers. Should they lose the guns, or not?
DeleteI take it we're talking in terms of what should happen ideally rather than in this particular case? What type of situation are we talking about as "non-violent abuse"?
DeleteWhy can't you answer a simple fucking question?
DeleteBecause I'm wanting to know if we're talking about someone who doesn't control his temper well, yells, and is a general manipulative asshole or someone who makes death threats, etc.
DeleteTell me what you have in mind, and we can discuss what ought to be done. I'm not going to spend my time breaking down all of the possibilities when you're just going to ask broad questions and give broad, dismissive answers.
Put in equal time and I'll do the same.
Mikeb, when you ask vague or deliberately misleading questions, what do you expect?
DeleteA guy who is a "general manipulative asshole" does not sustain a conviction for domestic abuse. Obviously we're talking about people who "makes death threats, etc."
DeleteYour prevaricating is very telling. And of course Greg defends you, but you're both full of shit. You make the discussion as tedious as possible as a way of wearing down your opponent.
Actually, Mike, you'll notice that right after I asked for that clarification, I answered about death threats where you had posted that specific question below--I'd say that threats to the life of a spouse should be treated with as much intolerance and severity as actual striking.
DeleteBut thanks for again accusing me of lying when the comments thread actually shows I was not.
Yes, after about a dozen comments you did finally answer the question. Why is it so difficult to get a straight answer from you? I have to practically beat it out of you. Only when you're cornered do you answer.
DeleteThat's an absolute lie. You asked a question in the piece, and I gave you an answer. You asked another, I asked for clarification, and as soon as the clarification I asked for was given, I answered, even though the clarification was given in another sub-thread of this post.
DeleteWhen you ask questions, I either answer them or ask for clarification so that I can properly answer them. That's a lot more than I can say for you and your cohorts.
Speaking for myself, I'm not going to answer vague questions without clarification. I've said before that making threats of violence should be treated in a much more serious way than it is now. Calling a woman a silly cow, by contrast, is offensive, but not criminal.
Delete"Third, advocates know that domestic violence is patterned behavior that escalates over time."
ReplyDeleteAny article that starts with "(right or left) wing controlled, is automatically an editorial. As to the part of the article that both Mike and I pulled, basing punishment on what will likely be future behavior is a dangerous thing.
Are there possibly any other crimes out there that might fit into a pattern of escalation to more serious crimes? And if so, do we get to punish based on what those possible future crimes will be?
There are FACTS that show domestic violence IS an escalating crime. Should judges ignore facts?
DeleteJim, I was always under he impression that here in the US we prosecute people for the crimes they commit, not crimes they might commit in the future.
DeleteWe are talking about the court looking at a law, not an individual case. All sorts of facts are presented to the court for their evaluation, not necessarily determinative, but informative. To not consider the proof of escalating violence in domestic abuse cases, while looking at domestic abuse cases, is to ignore the facts. If you think all people who commit crimes are prosecuted, then you certainly live in a delusional world.
DeleteI disagree Jim, This defendant in this case appealed the case, and the conviction was overturned. The federal government is appealing the decision to the supreme court. I posted that below.
DeleteIf the appeals court decision is upheld, things will become very interesting in regards to the Lautenberg Act. Lots of case reviews, big profits for lawyers,
As a matter of sociology or criminology, the potential for escalation is important, but in an individual case, the only thing that matters is the charge and the evidence supporting or rejecting it.
DeleteAgain you missed the point. I was not talking about this individual, but have it your way.
DeleteYou just can't challenge a law or have it " looked" at. There has to be an interested, or injured party to do that. In this case, it's the federal government because the conviction of Castleman was overturned.
DeleteI'd say that domestic violence that is not physical should still be treated very seriously. The guns have to go.
DeleteOn what basis, within the current law, would you say that, though? The law apparently states that it covers misdemeanor convictions based on the use of force or violence.
DeleteDo you think a guy who is verbally abusive to his wife, threatening her life, etc., etc., and is convicted of domestic abuse because of it, should keep his guns? This is a yes or no question.
DeleteI think the person who makes death threats is as bad as the person who beats his wife and should be punished equivalently.
DeleteNow, can you answer my simple question with regards to this law: When the law limits its effect to actual violence and use of force, on what basis can the court apply it beyond those bounds? Is it not a situation that calls for the legislature to amend the law?
Mikeb, yes or no, should a man who calls a woman a silly cow lose his gun rights?
DeleteIf a man verbally threatens his wife with harm, or death, it's ok since there was no physical assault?
DeleteWho said that, Anonymous?
Delete" Is it not a situation that calls for the legislature to amend the law?"
DeleteIf the wording of the law specifically limits itself to physical violence, then yes, absolutely, it needs to be amended.
That's the whole issue in this case--the law does that. So, can we expect some attempts to cut the violence and use of force language out, or are we still going to get a lot of bitching if the Court says that this guy gets to keep his guns?
DeleteYou're goddam right you'll get a lot of bitching if this dangerous guy, who even you admit should not have guns, retains his. That would be a violation of the spirit of the law. It would be like getting off on a technicality. It would be WRONG.
DeleteSo we should enforce laws by the spirit and ignore the letter, and we should never let people off on technicalities eh? It sounds good on paper, but you don't really want to live in a society like that--the opportunities for abuse, even the incentives for it, are far too numerous.
DeleteThe hillbillies defending their stand that wife and child abuse is fine, as long as it is not physical? This is the essence of hillbilly culture. Of course they don't respect law and break the law, that's also hillbilly culture, which they have admitted to multiple times. These lying ass holes should be in jail. It's ass holes like these hillbillies, that force more rules and regulations .
DeleteWithout knowing what this man was convicted of, it's hard to say how things should go in this case. Generally, I agree that it's appropriate to limit the rights of someone convicted of a crime of violence, at least for a some number of years.
ReplyDelete"The appeals court judge threw out the charges because Tennessee's misdemeanor domestic assault law does not require that physical force be used -- a very low standard in the eyes of the federal court.
ReplyDeleteBut the Obama administration, in its challege to the appeals court ruling, wrote in a court petition that the ruling, if allowed to stand, would render the law "largely inoperative," since various US states have differing definitions for what constitutes domestic violence."
So are we blaming states for writing their own laws? Or is this a case of the federal lawmakers just assuming that they could write a law that relies on convictions at state level and that it would be interpreted "their way"