U.S. v. Castleman - What's next?

[NickTheGreek]

Anybody know what is going to happen next with U.S. v. Castleman? I see nothing on the SCOTUS calendar.

This law affects a childhood friend of mine who I can no longer hunt with as a result of the law, so I have been watching it closely since I heard of it.

[CCWFacts]

It was argued on Jan 15.

[NickTheGreek]

It was argued on Jan 15.

I know that. But now what? Some of the arguments looked promising in favor of 2A. Everything I see just says TBD. But when? What is the time limit for them to rule on it?

[fizux]

I know that. But now what? Some of the arguments looked promising in favor of 2A. Everything I see just says TBD. But when? What is the time limit for them to rule on it?

They get to do whatever they want, but if you track the recent opinions coming out vs. the dates those cases were argued, that should give you an idea of how long opinions take to write.

My guess is by June, but that is a SWAG without much thought put in.

[Kharn]

The Court holds the most important opinions for late June of each year. Depending on how they feel about Abramski and Castleman, they could be early or they could be held towards near the end. I'd expect them to be released the week prior to the final week, they're not that ground-breaking.

[NickTheGreek]

The Court holds the most important opinions for late June of each year. Depending on how they feel about Abramski and Castleman, they could be early or they could be held towards near the end. I'd expect them to be released the week prior to the final week, they're not that ground-breaking.

Castleman is not a small case. It is incredibly groundbreaking when you consider this could be the start of allowing non-violent felons to own firearms. People who commit investment fraud and such are not moral by any means, but if that is all they did, and they do their time in jail, they should be able to own. I don't consider them violent and a threat to own a firearm in any way, and same for the guy who raises his voice or slams a door in an argument with his wife.

[ryan_j]

Castleman opinion is in.

Looks like Castleman cannot possess a firearm.

I see very little "gun" in this opinion. It is all about domestic violence.

[prometa]

Castleman opinion is in.

Looks like Castleman cannot possess a firearm.

I see very little "gun" in this opinion. It is all about domestic violence.

And the judgement was unanimous.

[anthonyca]

"Offensive touching" is grounds for a lifetime loss of second amendment rights according to this unanimous decision. Get ready for more laws. I bet a new law extending this to anyone, not just parents or partners, will be next.

[MudCamper]

So what effect will this have on Enos V Holder?

And what did Castleman do? Did he try to poison his wife? (This seems like felony action to me, not comparable to "offensive touching".)

[UnlmtdSources]

This was the right call and it was unanimous. I'm all for respecting 2A and it is not unlimited. Pro-2A has got to start picking its battles wiser. There is no strategy in throwing everything you can against the wall and seeing where it goes. At some point there has to be a strategy of education and trying to win over some of the opposition through intelligence and not BS.

I have no doubt that some dumbass folks are going to respond to this post with vitriol, but c'mon! Self-defense is good cause and there are too way many criminals with guns, but odds are they got those guns from someone who could care less about 2A and I don't hear the NRA or anyone else of the Pro-Gun side offering any solutions to the problem. If a person was dumb enough to plea to a lesser domestic violence offense thus accepting the conviction, then they brought it on themselves! We all know that domestic violence is a major issue in this country and far too many incidents end in death.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people and this is addressing just that.

[Epaphroditus]

Never plead guilty and always fight for your rights. That's the message I get ... besides the obvious.

[franklyfresh]

OP, your childhood friend needs a better Plaintiff to trial for his 2A back. But this opinion may have made that fight many times harder.

[MudCamper]

I have no doubt that some dumbass folks are going to respond to this post with vitriol, but c'mon!

I don't know. This looks like a slippery slope to me. And it looks like it's headed toward a place where any misdemeanor crime equals an excuse to ban possession of firearms for life.

Imagine this. A drunk idiot attacks you in a bar or restaurant. You defend yourself by pushing him away. You lose your 2A Rights for life.

[IVC]

I have no doubt that some dumbass folks are going to respond to this post with vitriol, but c'mon! Self-defense is good cause and there are too way many criminals with guns, but odds are they got those guns from someone who could care less about 2A and I don't hear the NRA or anyone else of the Pro-Gun side offering any solutions to the problem.

NRA cannot solve social issues and it shouldn't. LGBT also doesn't provide cure for AIDS, yet that cannot be used against them, or as a precursor to reintroducing sodomy laws.

If a person was dumb enough to plea to a lesser domestic violence offense thus accepting the conviction, then they brought it on themselves! We all know that domestic violence is a major issue in this country and far too many incidents end in death.

Then *all* domestic violence should become a felony. Why keeping it a misdemeanor if it's that serious. Except, of course, to keep half the Hollywood from being convicted felons (or, more precisely, the other half.)

Not to mention that S.F. sheriff Mirkarimi had to perform some evasive actions in order that he himself didn't end up a prohibited person. A less informed person would just fall in the trap. Is Mirkarimi fit to own firearms? He actually did hit his wife.

The issue most of us have with this is that it is a misdemeanor that results in a loss of right.