The Supreme Court has ruled to uphold a gun control law that prevents anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun. As reported by USA Today , the case was brought by two men who were convicted of reckless acts of domestic violence. When they were found in possession of firearms, charges were brought against them. They challenged the right of government to bar them from owning a gun. Today, the Supreme Court ruled to support the interpretation of the domestic violence gun control law that resulted in a removal of their right to own firearms.
The gun control law at the center of this decision is an amendment to the 1996 federal Gun Control Act. That amendment says that anyone who is found guilty of misdemeanor acts of domestic violence is not permitted to own a firearm. The question posed to the Supreme Court was whether or not it was the intention of this amendment to the Gun Control Act to remove the right to bear arms from those convicted of reckless domestic violence. An act of domestic violence is considered reckless if it is an act committed “in the heat of the moment” instead of a premeditated act.
https://www.facebook.com/usatoday/posts/10153632252435667
The incidents involved in this case that has drawn the attention of both advocates against domestic violence and gun control groups involve two men who were found guilty of reckless domestic violence. Mother Jones reports the two men are Stephen Vosine and William Armstrong III. Vosine has a long record of abusing those with whom he is in a relationship. Among those convictions are a guilty plea to assaulting his girlfriend in 2003 and a 2005 conviction for assaulting another girlfriend. He has been reported for shooting and killing a bald eagle. During the ensuing background check, these convictions were discovered. Vosine was found guilty of violating the gun control law related to those convicted of domestic violence. Armstong was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic assault against his wife in 2002 and 2008. When officers searched his home for marijuana and drug paraphernalia in 2010, they found six guns and found him in violation of the same gun control law.
When the men appealed the court decision to remove their right to own a gun, they appealed and the decision of the court in Maine, where both men live, upheld the verdict, stating that the definition of “reckless” domestic violence fits the conditions under which the amendment to the Gun Control Act say an individual can lose their right to own a gun. Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in with the same decision.
https://www.facebook.com/wsj/posts/10154428779848128
Justice Elena Kegan wrote the 12-page opinion issued by the Supreme Court on this gun control case. It’s a case that may have been mostly overlooked by the general public when it was originally brought before the Supreme Court in February; however, Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken up for the first time in 10 years. Thomas asked nine questions during the oral argument and authored the 19-page dissent today. He is a long-time supporter of gun ownership and many believe he has chose a gun control case to break his silence because of his passion for the topic and because the other vocal defender of gun ownership on the Supreme Court was Anthony Scalia, who passed away in February. Among Thomas’s comments in his dissent was this.
“We treat no other constitutional right 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.”
[Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images]
