US Supreme Court to hear Tennessee gun case

[TN_Jim]

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2013/10/02/supreme-court-to-hear-tennessee-gun-case.html

 

"The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of a Tennessee man who was banned from ever owning a firearm again due to pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault.In 2001, James Castleman pleaded guilty..."

 

Anyone have more information on this case?

[Chucktshoes]

Here's to hoping that the SCOTUS hears this case and kills the Lautenberg Amendment.

[c.a.willard]

Here is a copy of the brief for any one who is interested.

 

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Castleman_Opp_Mayer-Yale.pdf

[Oh Shoot]

Here's to hoping that the SCOTUS hears this case and kills the Lautenberg Amendment.

 

It won't be about that, looks like, but more regarding whether TN's version of domestic violence law is valid, or I guess "constitutional".

 

Don't see why it wouldn't be though. You don't have to actually even touch someone to be convicted of various other types of assault in TN, and I suppose it's that way in various other states too.

 

- OS

[midtennchip]

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/news/2013/10/02/supreme-court-to-hear-tennessee-gun-case.html

"The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of a Tennessee man who was banned from ever owning a firearm again due to pleading guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault.In 2001, James Castleman pleaded guilty..."

Anyone have more information on this case?

According to both the Federal District Court for Western Tennessee and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Tennessee's misdemeanor domestic assault statute "is not categorically a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that rises to the level of violence necessary to prohibit gun possession. There is another Sixth Circuit case, United States v. McMurray, that found that Tennessee's aggravated assault statute also did not rise to the level of violence necessary, either.

In essence, the Courts are saying that these Tennessee statutes criminalize very low level "physical force" that was not intended to be a gun prohibition conviction under Federal law. Tennessee allows conviction for simple touching that causes injury, without using "strong physical force." Basically, there appears to be a difference between what the federal law calls "violent" and what Tennessee calls "violent."

Here's the Sixth Circuit opinion:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0344p-06.pdf Edited October 4, 2013 by midtennchip

[Oh Shoot]

Don't have to touch anyone at all for simple assault (fear factor is enough) or aggravated assault (just implied threat of showing a gun is enough), right?

 

What is the domestic assault number? Does it actually require physical contact at all, unlike the others?

 

- OS

[midtennchip]

Don't have to touch anyone at all for simple assault (fear factor is enough) or aggravated assault (just implied threat of showing a gun is enough), right?
 
What is the domestic assault number? Does it actually require physical contact at all, unlike the others?
 
- OS

The details of the Tennessee statute are in the opinion linked above. Look at pages 11-12. It starts around that point. However, I think the dissent at the end of the opinion could be the reason the SCOTUS took the case.

[Oh Shoot]

The details of the Tennessee statute are in the opinion linked above. Look at pages 11-12. It starts around that point. However, I think the dissent at the end of the opinion could be the reason the SCOTUS took the case.

 

edit: took time to read more of the doc, and TN statute.

 

So, looks like domestic assault in TN is anything that fits an assault statute, with the "domestic" variable also met.

 

Skimmed the article and get the gist of the two sides -- federal definition of domestic violence 'meanor for purposes of gun ownership defines it as "use or attempted use of physical force", both of which are overt acts, but you don't have to commit an overt act to be convicted of it as per TCA.

 

Sticky wicket all right. My layman's opinion on decision : too close to call. :)

 

Main prob is not for those who obviously have committed physical violence but those who get convicted for merely inspiring the fear of it, a highly subjective call, just like a lot of orders of protection too, seems. But both wind up with same conviction, with same firearms ownership ban imposed.

 

- OS

Edited October 4, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Patton]

Yeah, TN has some stupid articles under domestic violence. Some aren't but some are.

[mdmoseley]

Simply implying you have a weapon doesn't meet the agg assault statute. Learned that one the hard way on an arrest I made. Inorder for an agg assault to prevent possession of any firearm there are specific criteria. One being the agg assault had to have a weapon involved. That being said simply having a felony record wont preclude you from owning long guns just handguns. Gun possession on domestics can be addressed by the judge in a plea agreement also. The case will be interesting to see which way it goes.

[Oh Shoot]

.... That being said simply having a felony record wont preclude you from owning long guns just handguns.

 

Felony or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction prohibits all firearm ownership as per federal law.

 

TN law admittedly does give an out for long guns if the felony was not "involving the use or attempted use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon", but don't see how that much matters. And TN law still prohibits all firearm possession for the domestic violence conviction.

 

- OS

Edited October 20, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Chucktshoes]

Sorry for the bluntness, but that is so wrong. Felony or misdemeanor domestic violence conviction prohibits all firearm ownership as per federal law.

 

TN law admittedly does give an out for long guns if the felony was not violent, but don't see how that much matters.

 

- OS

Especially since as I understand it, the federal government is all or nothing on the subject. If the state places ANY restriction upon firearms ownership upon restoration of franchise rights, the federal government does not recognize the rights as having been restored at all. Though a nonviolent felon in possession of a long gun may not face state charges, they are still eligible for federal charges.

[Oh Shoot]

Especially since as I understand it, the federal government is all or nothing on the subject. If the state places ANY restriction upon firearms ownership upon restoration of franchise rights, the federal government does not recognize the rights as having been restored at all. Though a nonviolent felon in possession of a long gun may not face state charges, they are still eligible for federal charges.

 

You know better than to quote me before I've edited 2 or 3 times, man. :)

 

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

You know better than to quote me before I've edited 2 or 3 times, man. :)

 

- OS

True, but your edit didn't affect my point, so it stands as is. :P

[Guest CCPT]

Yeah, TN has some stupid articles under domestic violence. Some aren't but some are.

You got that right, trust me. Waaay too broad. Edited December 12, 2013 by CCPT

[JayC]

You're right but you don't loose your gun rights over simple assault.

 

Don't have to touch anyone at all for simple assault (fear factor is enough) or aggravated assault (just implied threat of showing a gun is enough), right?

 

What is the domestic assault number? Does it actually require physical contact at all, unlike the others?

 

- OS