US v. Hayes--interesting SCOTUS gun case

[Guest Revelator]

Last week the High Court heard arguments on a case concerning the federal law barring individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from owning or possessing a firearm. You can read a full background of the case here.

This is an extremely technical legal argument that has to do mostly with grammar, punctuation, Congressional intent and other such things that'll cure insomnia real quick. Basically Hayes was convicted in West Virginia some years ago of hitting his wife. However, it was not a domestic violence conviction but rather asault and battery. The law under which he was convicted had no element of familial relationship. Some years later they find a gun in Hayes' house and he is charged with the federal crime of being in possession of a firearm as a domestic violence offender (aka the Lautenberg Act). They found the gun, it's interesting to note, when the police were called to Hayes' house on a domestic violence 911 call.

Under the Lautenberg Act, misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is defined as a crime that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse...of the victim." The issue is that the state law under which Hayes was convicted does not have this element. It was a generic assault/battery law. In a nutshell, does the Court go by the law or by the facts of the case? And that's where you get into Congressional intent and comma placement and all that fun stuff. I haven't read the oral argument transcript but it will be interesting to watch.

Personally I don't think it's such a bad idea that if someone assaults a close family member they forever lose their right to have a firearm. I understand that not all cases are the same, but at some point you've got to have a rule for everyone, no ifs ands or buts. Now I also understand that responsible people can make one bad decision, and that is why there's judicial diversion. Here in Tennesse if someone gets a DV charge and it's their first offense and they have otherwise been a model citizen their entire lives, they can go on probation for 11 mos/29 days and get the charge expunged. This will not affect their right to own guns (after they finish their probation, of course). That's their one free bite at the apple. Actually, here in Memphis they often give offenders two bites. Often the prosecutors will allow a first-time offender to complete a simple 8-week anger management course; all they have to do is come back to court with the certificate and the case is dismissed at costs. If that person gets in trouble again they can then use their diversion.

[Guest Ghostrider]

It's interesting you bring this up.

As I read this, it's a question of "retroactive penalty" a specific no-no per the US constitution.

As I understand it, the A&B with the domestic partner happened BEFORE the Lautenbery Amendment became law. Also, as I read it, the former partner was pissed at the guy and called the cops on him for having the guy with a "domestic violence" past (when it was actually a vanilla A&.

I'm not sure I have all the facts right, and I'm not an attorney, but what it appears is that they are trying to punish a guy with the law that was passed AFTER he committed his "crime". Which, is patent bull ****.

[Guest tedbo]

On that same note, I recall hearing stories that this included military and police shortly after Laughtenberg came out and was retroactive.

Anybody?

[Guest Revelator]

I believe this law has been challenged before on retroactive grounds and courts have found it ok. In Hayes' case, he is being punished for something that happened after the law was passed--his possession of a firearm. Now, granted, to get to that point he had to become a domestic violence offender under the federal law and his state conviction happened before that. But I think the Court is going to say that he is not being punished retroactively, he was merely put in a certain status retroactively.

[Reservoir Dog]

I believe this law has been challenged before on retroactive grounds and courts have found it ok.

Yeah, I think the Lautenberg Amendment has been challenged twice on the retroactive grounds, and the law was upheld. Lautenberg is not really an ex post facto law. As you stated, he is being charged for his possession after the law was passed, and not before.

I am also interested in seeing how this plays out. The situation matches the Lautenberg requirements, but the law he was convicted for does not match the requirements. Interesting case.

[DaveTN]

Has nothing to do with this case… but as a former cop I try to make sure my friends and family understands the consequences of a Domestic Violence charge.

My experience is with <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Illinois </st1:State>law; not <st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State>.

Like DUI, Domestic Violence is a serious charge that can haunt you the rest of your life or end careers.

When we think of “Domestic Violence†cases most of us think of the TV show type cases where the man kills the woman or badly beats her. Those are not misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Many DV cases (most I have been on) have no evidence of physical abuse. In <st1:State>Illinois</st1:State> a DV arrest did not require a battery (physical) only assault (words). I don’t know if that is the case in <st1:State><ST1:pTennessee</st1:State> or not.

If you have a problem… get help. If you live where someone (anyone) that calls the Police on you… get out.

I have seen many people refused the ability to purchase or own a firearm that have domestic violence arrests that did not involve violence, a weapon, or threat of a weapon. It’s not right and the courts should do something about it.

[TripleDigitRide]

Why is it that you lose your right to own a firearm when you beat your wife, but not when you beat a perfect stranger? Physical abuse is physical abuse.

[DaveTN]

Why is it that you lose your right to own a firearm when you beat your wife, but not when you beat a perfect stranger? Physical abuse is physical abuse.

Because there is a special interest group of women out there that didn’t care if you beat a perfect stranger. They think that there is a group of women that aren’t smart enough to think for themselves; so they need to legislate what those women need.

I have been forced to put a bunch of people in jail on this charge and as you can probably tell I think its

[Guest Revelator]

I suppose the people behind this law believe that if you assault someone close to you as opposed to a stranger, you've got a greater tendency for violence in general and should not be allowed access to firearms. I understand this reasoning and generally agree with it, but I don't know if there's any scientific evidence to back it up.

[Guest JLowe]

I suppose the people behind this law believe that if you assault someone close to you as opposed to a stranger, you've got a greater tendency for violence in general and should not be allowed access to firearms. I understand this reasoning and generally agree with it, but I don't know if there's any scientific evidence to back it up.

It all started with a case in which a woman called the police after her husband beat her on several different occasions. She left him and he went out and bout a handgun after he received the restraining order. He went by her home, beat her, then shot her. An advocacy group used it to get the DV laws in place that we know now.

DaveTN: The law is the same here in TN as well. It involves any aspect of the Assault laws. Physical violence, threats of physical violence, and placing someone in fear of physical violence. People get arrested for DV all the time because the other party states that they were afraid of the other person. I think that DV law needs to have more specific elements to it.