The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that says people convicted of domestic violence may not own firearms.
The court ruled 6-2 in the case brought by two men from Maine – Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong – who said that the federal gun law does not cover acts of domestic violence if the violence took place in the heat of an argument. Lawyers in the case – Voisine v The United States – argued that the law applies only to intentional acts of violence.
Voisine and Armstrong were each convicted of assaulting their girlfriends, and when Voisine was later being investigated for killing a bald eagle, authorities found he owned a rifle. A records check turned up Voisine’s two convictions on domestic abuse, and he was charged with violating the law that prohibits the possession of firearms and ammunition by individuals who have previously been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Armstrong was also found to have weapons after he was convicted of domestic violence two years before, and he was arrested for violating the law.
Why did the case come before the court?
Lawyers for Voisine and Armstrong argued that the men’s convictions in the state of Maine do not automatically qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence because Maine’s laws on domestic abuse can be violated by conduct that is merely reckless (in the heat of an argument), rather than intentional (plotting to assault someone). Voisine was charged with “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” harming his girlfriend.
This case, other than being a Supreme Court case, made history when Justice Clarence Thomas broke a 10-year silence from the bench to ask questions of the lawyers arguing the case. Thomas is said to believe that the time the lawyers argue in front of the bench is their time, not the justices. It's a belief only he seems to hold.
What is the law they are talking about?
The law they are talking about is The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (or "the Lautenberg Amendment," named for Sen. Frank Lautenberg who sponsored the bill.) The law bans access to firearms for people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).) also bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse. In addition, it is unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons. The law was enacted in 1996.
What did the court say in the ruling?
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the court’s opinion. In it she said, “Congress’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior. A person who assaults another recklessly ‘use[s]’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally. The relevant text thus supports prohibiting petitioners, and others with similar criminal records, from possessing firearms,” Kagan wrote. “The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the ‘use . . . of physical force’ against a domestic relation,” Kagan added. “That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly—i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm.”
Justice Clarence Thomas writing the dissent argued, "We treat no other constitutional right (the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms) so cavalierly. In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the court continues to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right."
About the Author
