PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS takes U.S. v. Castleman


Paladin
10-01-2013, 7:59 PM
http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/court-grants-eight-cases

and

Supreme Court could end domestic violence gun ban

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case that would determine if someone convicted of domestic violence could be allowed, in some cases, to own a gun.

<snip>

The appeals court judge threw out the charges because Tennessee's misdemeanor domestic assault law does not require that physical force be used -- a very low standard in the eyes of the federal court.

But the Obama administration, in its challege to the appeals court ruling, wrote in a court petition that the ruling, if allowed to stand, would render the law "largely inoperative," since various US states have differing definitions for what constitutes domestic violence.

The court is to hear arguments in the case next January.

More at:
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-could-end-domestic-violence-gun-ban-190543511.html

taperxz
10-01-2013, 9:00 PM
Whats interesting is that Elena Kagan is not participating in this case.

SWalt
10-01-2013, 9:07 PM
I guess we will find out if SCOTUS takes 2A as serious as it should. Unless there is extreme violence, domestic abuse laws are way too strict. Ex)Losing rights because you push someone out of the way or brush by them who is blocking your exit from the situation.

taperxz
10-01-2013, 9:10 PM
I guess we will find out if SCOTUS takes 2A as serious as it should. Unless there is extreme violence, domestic abuse laws are way too strict. Ex)Losing rights because you push someone out of the way or brush by them who is blocking your exit from the situation.

Or making false accusations or being considered an abuser for making comments!

Which is mentioned in Tennessee law apparently.

Paladin
10-01-2013, 11:44 PM
Does anyone know if the "standard of review"/scrutiny will be an issue in this case?

If so, will scrutiny be determined for a RKBA "inside the home", "out in public", or both?

Sakiri
10-02-2013, 12:16 AM
Does anyone know if the "standard of review"/scrutiny will be an issue in this case?

If so, will scrutiny be determined for a RKBA "inside the home", "out in public", or both?

This case has nothing to do with inside/outside the home.

This case has to do with laws prohibiting ownership/possession of firearms in domestic violence cases.

Many states have laws that argue for a ban when ANY domestic case comes up. Making threats? Even if it's not true, no guns for you. Shouting match and had the cops called, but no one pulled punches? Domestic violence. Even when there's no physical violence involved.

This case is looking to remove that. Unless there is documented physical violence, there is no reason to prohibit firearms ownership.

ziegenbock
10-02-2013, 12:16 AM
Does anyone know if the "standard of review"/scrutiny will be an issue in this case?

If so, will scrutiny be determined for a RKBA "inside the home", "out in public", or both?

Not this case. They will be looking at the wording that was used in a pervious case and are asked if the lanuage in another section, has the same meaning. Which is what the district and 6th circuit, said yes it does.


QUESTION PRESENTED
Section 922(g)(9) of Title 18, United States Code,
makes it a crime for any person convicted of a “misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence” to possess a
firearm. Such a crime is defined as one that includes,
“as an element, the use or attempted use of physical
force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A). In Johnson v. United States,
559 U.S. 133 (2010), this Court held that virtually
identical language used to define the term “violent
felony,” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(1), requires
the use of “violent force.” The question presented
is:
Whether the term “use of physical force” has the
same meaning in Sections 924(e)(2)(B)(i) and
921(a)(33)(A).

ziegenbock
10-02-2013, 12:18 AM
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-castleman/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

press1280
10-02-2013, 2:34 AM
Not a 2A case, will only address criminal statues.

krucam
10-02-2013, 2:57 AM
CA9's Enos v Holder, a Don Kilmer case, will definitely be impacted by this one. I wish Enos had beaten this case to One First...

http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/enosvholder/

Paladin
10-02-2013, 7:08 AM
Not this case. They will be looking at the wording that was used in a pervious case and are asked if the lanuage in another section, has the same meaning. Which is what the district and 6th circuit, said yes it does.


QUESTION PRESENTED
Section 922(g)(9) of Title 18, United States Code,
makes it a crime for any person convicted of a “misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence” to possess a
firearm. Such a crime is defined as one that includes,
“as an element, the use or attempted use of physical
force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon.” 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A). In Johnson v. United States,
559 U.S. 133 (2010), this Court held that virtually
identical language used to define the term “violent
felony,” as used in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(1), requires
the use of “violent force.” The question presented
is:
Whether the term “use of physical force” has the
same meaning in Sections 924(e)(2)(B)(i) and
921(a)(33)(A).
Bummer. I was hoping this would be a 2nd A RKBA case. Guess not.

Was hoping the issue would be whether a non-violent Domestic Violence conviction (:confused:) forfeits your 2nd A rights, specifically your RKA or just your RBA (i.e., keep arms as you go about your business in public). Was hoping for level of scrutiny specified for RKA and RBA cases, thus covering our entire 2nd A RKBA.

Oh well. Hopefully, on Oct 15th, we'll find out if they'll take Woollard. If not, then we've got until about Nov 25 to ask for cert. in Drake.

taperxz
10-02-2013, 2:52 PM
Not a 2A case, will only address criminal statues.


It may not be a 2A case to YOU at present but it may very well be for some prohibited due to DV charges. If this is not a Lautenberg challenge, i don't know what is.

In United States v. Castleman, the Court will consider whether a state conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” for purposes of federal gun laws.

zhyla
10-02-2013, 3:13 PM
Glad to see them take something gun related.

SanPedroShooter
10-02-2013, 5:57 PM
I saw this on Yahoo and went back to look for it and I couldn't find it again.

I thought maybe the date was old.

Laugetnburg is a rubbish law that seems ripe for challenge from my laymens perspective.

Are there any other (wildly varying by jurisdiction) misdemeanors that get you a lifetime ban on a fundamental right?

Castleman seems like a real dirt bag, but whatever.

anthonyca
10-07-2013, 6:11 AM
I saw this on Yahoo and went back to look for it and I couldn't find it again.

I thought maybe the date was old.

Laugetnburg is a rubbish law that seems ripe for challenge from my laymens perspective.

Are there any other (wildly varying by jurisdiction) misdemeanors that get you a lifetime ban on a fundamental right?

Castleman seems like a real dirt bag, but whatever.

I don't yet know anything about this case or Castleman but if you look at all the domestic violence losses there is one thing in common, the person challenging the law was a bad candidate. Many had been arrested and convicted multiple times and a couple were still on probation for a previous case when the case that they challenged happened. This is why he government hates Enos, Don Kilmer was careful in his selection of plaintiffs.

M107A1
01-17-2014, 1:07 PM
Audio from United States v. Castleman

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-1371&TY=2013

elSquid
01-17-2014, 2:10 PM
Audio from United States v. Castleman

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-1371&TY=2013

Transcript here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1371_2cp3.pdf

-- Michael

anthonyca
01-20-2014, 3:34 PM
Listen or read the government lawyer's words, she is arguing that "any touching" is grounds for a lifetime ban and making you a federal felon who should spend 10 years in prison and pay a $250,000 fine if you ever even touch a gun. That is the way it is currently enforced but now they said it at SCOTUS. You don't even have to hurt anyone or try to hurt anyone.

Scalia brought up washing out your child's mouth with soap, yes that would get you banned for life.

I'm coming off of a long week with no weekend and I have to go back to work in a few hours so I will update later. There needs to be much better communication from out side's lawyers with the lawyers defending these cases, not to mention the bad plaintiffs.

Castleman's lawyer was asked if people are really ever convicted or even arrested for just touching someone and he said he didn't have an answer. WHAT? You're arguing at SCOTUS and you are thrown a softball right down the middle and you take it on 0 and 2? The Federal VAWA withholds funds from states that do not have a very proactive DV arrest and prosecution program. Most states went to shall arrest and the rest went to should arrest anytime the police are called after this act so they would not loose funding.

There are also thousands of documented cases where the prosecution proceeds when the victim says that they never wanted to press charges in the first place and that there was no violence but someone did touch them. here are government papers touting this "achievement".

In Johnson, which was about the same exact language in Lautenberg but written for felony convictions, the meeting between President Nixon and the Russian leader was brought up. In that, they got in an argument and Nixon poked the Russian with his finger. The fact that this was enough "force or violence" for this law was mocked by all but the government.

This lawyer sucked big time, fortunately, the government's lawyer sucked more. Hopefully the briefs are written better for castleman than this oral argument.