Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Huge Gun Rights Loss

Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.

The plaintiffs in this case, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, both of Maine, had pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault charges after slapping or shoving their romantic partners. Several years later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic abusers.



The Two-Way

Supreme Court Throws Out Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's Conviction

Both argued that the weapons ban should not apply to them because their misdemeanor cases were for "reckless conduct" rather than intentional abuse.

Their appeal had been rejected by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the plaintiffs carried it on to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. Five justices concurred in Kagan's opinion, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part.

Similar domestic abuse laws are now on the books in 34 states and the District of Columbia, triggering the federal weapons ban. But if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way today, that ban would no longer have applied in such cases.

The case, Voisine v. United States, had attracted attention in recent days because Congress has been in turmoil over efforts to tighten controls on firearms — especially to limit the number of people who can buy guns despite their past actions.

When argued in open court on Feb. 29, the case drew attention because Thomas asked questions in oral argument for the first time in a decade. He drew gasps when he asked several questions from the bench.

Thomas had asked the attorney defending the conviction of the two men whether any other misdemeanor conviction could cause a defendant the loss of "a constitutional right." Thomas has been known as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment guarantee of a right "to keep and bear arms."

If this misdemeanor conviction can lead to gun rights loss, what will the next minor offence be that does the same.
Won't be long rest assured.

Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.

Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.

Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.

Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".

If the offence warrants I,t a felony can and will be charged

This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.

Some dumb S@#! that beats his wife and or kids should have a lot more taken away from him than his gun.
They should cut of his nuts too !!!!
No problem here with the ruling.

Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".

This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.

Of all the people charged with domestic violence in this country, I'd guess 1% (or less) are what you imagine when you think "wife beater".

This decision should scare the living daylights out of every man in the country.

Domestic charges (atleast here) also would apply if you got into a fight with your brother, or anyone else living in the same house (think roomate)