Supreme Court rules domestic abusers can lose gun ownership rights
The 6-2 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan and endorsed by conservative as well as liberal justices, upheld the sentences imposed on two Maine men who had argued their misdemeanor convictions for domestic abuse should not trigger a federal gun control statute. Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The federal law was intended to deny guns to people convicted of violent acts against family members, based in part on research showing they are more likely to use guns domestically in the future.
Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty to domestic assault in 2004. Five years later, federal authorities found him in possession of a gun after an anonymous tip that he had shot a bald eagle. William Armstrong pleaded guilty to a similar assault charge in 2008 and was found to own guns two years later.
Both men contested their convictions under the federal gun statute. They argued that the state law allowed for their convictions based on recklessness, rather than only criminal intent. They said the federal law denying guns to domestic abusers wasn't intended to apply to reckless behavior.
The justices disagreed — but Thomas, whose questions from the bench during oral argument in February were his first in a decade, said the result was a denial of a Second Amendment right.
"We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly," he said in his dissent. "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."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...stic-violence-abuse-clarence-thomas/86353402/
This is an interesting case all the way around. For starters, the dissent was from a conservative and liberal member of the bench that are almost, if not, always on the opposite side of issues, Thomas and Sotamayor. I haven't had time to read her dissent, but I am curious as to why a staunch liberal would side with Thomas on this.
Liberals who hail this case puzzle me. The same liberals who laud this case, want other felons to get their right to vote back or even have their right to vote while incarcerated. Both rights are constitutional, yet, liberals believe one should be taken away, not just temporarily, but permanently for a misdeed while the other, say someone who murders someone, can have their rights restored.
The 6-2 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan and endorsed by conservative as well as liberal justices, upheld the sentences imposed on two Maine men who had argued their misdemeanor convictions for domestic abuse should not trigger a federal gun control statute. Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The federal law was intended to deny guns to people convicted of violent acts against family members, based in part on research showing they are more likely to use guns domestically in the future.
Stephen Voisine pleaded guilty to domestic assault in 2004. Five years later, federal authorities found him in possession of a gun after an anonymous tip that he had shot a bald eagle. William Armstrong pleaded guilty to a similar assault charge in 2008 and was found to own guns two years later.
Both men contested their convictions under the federal gun statute. They argued that the state law allowed for their convictions based on recklessness, rather than only criminal intent. They said the federal law denying guns to domestic abusers wasn't intended to apply to reckless behavior.
The justices disagreed — but Thomas, whose questions from the bench during oral argument in February were his first in a decade, said the result was a denial of a Second Amendment right.
"We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly," he said in his dissent. "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."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...stic-violence-abuse-clarence-thomas/86353402/
This is an interesting case all the way around. For starters, the dissent was from a conservative and liberal member of the bench that are almost, if not, always on the opposite side of issues, Thomas and Sotamayor. I haven't had time to read her dissent, but I am curious as to why a staunch liberal would side with Thomas on this.
Liberals who hail this case puzzle me. The same liberals who laud this case, want other felons to get their right to vote back or even have their right to vote while incarcerated. Both rights are constitutional, yet, liberals believe one should be taken away, not just temporarily, but permanently for a misdeed while the other, say someone who murders someone, can have their rights restored.