Domestic Violence And Guns Dont Really Mix

Domestic Violence And Guns Don't Really Mix pexels.com On Monday, the Supreme Court voted to uphold this law, preventing those convicted with misdemeanor domestic violence from owning guns. Two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, were involved in the case, claiming that their guilty pleas for domestic violence (i.e. hitting their partners) shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether or not they are able to obtain a weapon. The justices disagreed. They rejected all arguments that the law should cover only intentional acts of abuse and not “reckless” acts of abuse. (Reckless here defined as the perpetrator “is aware of the risk that an act will cause injury, but not certain it will”). An example of such “reckless” behavior would be throwing a plate during an argument or slamming doors in the same scenario. Justice Elena Kagan, speaking on behalf of all Supreme Court justices, claimed this law was put forth by Congress 20 years ago to close out a loophole, and “prohibit domestic abusers convicted under run-of-the-mill misdemeanor or assault and battery laws from possessing guns.” She also claimed that excluding “reckless” misdemeanors would undermine the design of this law. Of course, gun rights activists are in strong opposition to this ruling. According to them, Voisine and Armstrong III shouldn’t lose a constitutional right just because of domestic abuse. Advocates for domestic abuse fell on the other side of the spectrum, pushing for the restriction to stay in place. Voisine pled guilty in 2004 to assault when he slapped his girlfriend in the face while under the influence. A few years following this incident, he was reported by an anonymous source for having shot a bald eagle with a rifle, at which point he was convicted and sentenced to one year in prison. Armstrong pled guilty in 2008 to assaulting his wife. A few years following the incident, police searched his home during a narcotics investigation and discovered firearms and ammunition. He was then sentenced to three years of probation. While this wasn’t the most important case the justices had to cover, its outcome is certainly a step in the right direction. The Obama administration is happy with the ruling according to White House spokesman, Eric Schultz, suggesting that it still probably wouldn’t affect the current gun control debate circulating in Congress following the mass shooting in Orlando, FL. Still, it’s a case worthy of our attention, especially because it prompted Justice Clarence Thomas to ask multiple questions from the bench, something he hadn’t done in about 10 years. (Justice Thomas was a close friend of Justice Antonin Scalia, the recently deceased judge, a conservative supporter of gun rights). So it was no surprise that Justice Thomas was concerned with the argument that misdemeanor conviction would deprive a person of a constitutional right to bear arms. And it was also no surprise that he dissented from the ruling on Monday, stating, “Under the majority’s reading, a single conviction under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family member such as by texting while driving can now trigger a lifetime ban on gun ownership … We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented as well, agreeing that Congress’ law should have been written differently to include reckless conduct. Voisine and Armstong were the major topics of Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court, as they were both convicted of breaking federal law following their misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence. This didn’t stop either man, however, from arguing that they shouldn’t be barred from owning firearms, as their convictions “could have been based on reckless action, not action that was knowing or intentional.” But with the Supreme Court ruling just the opposite, it’s something for everyone to keep in mind, and hopefully something that will have an effect on future gun laws. The bottom line: if you commit a crime, be it misdemeanor or major felony, you’re bound to lose some privileges. While the country is largely divided on gun control issues, it’s important to remember, especially in this instance, that domestic violence is nonetheless violence. So putting a gun into the arms of an already violent being is something that should be taken seriously. And unfortunately, this isn’t something that can be looked upon on a case-by-case basis. So don’t commit crimes and you won’t have your rights taken away. At least, that’s what the Supreme Court’s ruling is telling the general population. So for now, it’s in your best interest to listen, as there are going to be many gun law debates to follow, and they’re going to be the final say.