PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on June 27, 2016, 04:03:18 PM
-
The 6-2 ruling, written by Justice Elena Kagan and endorsed by conservative as well as liberal justices, upheld the sentences imposed on two Maine men who had argued their misdemeanor convictions for domestic abuse should not trigger a federal gun control statute. Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The federal law was intended to deny guns to people convicted of violent acts against family members, based in part on research showing they are more likely to use guns domestically in the future.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-abuse-clarence-thomas/86353402/
I find it interesting that Sotomayor dissented on this while Alito was in the majority.
I disagree with this ruling for a few reasons. It has to do with the fact that, first, domestic violence is an attachment to a misdemeanor assault and second, that somehow if someone is bent on abusing their family that a gun is the only way in which that will occur. I view this as another assault on the Second Amendment and a way to keep another group of people from owning guns.
-
Conservative versus liberal is an imperfect yardstick to determine how a justice may vote on any given issue. I too found it somewhat surprising for the same reasons you do. I also agree with the dissent, notwithstanding my extreme sympathy to all victims of domestic abuse.
-
There is no other misdemeanor conviction which causes one to lose a Constitutional right (as much as I can recall anyhow). For that reason only I am opposed to the ruling.
-
There is no other misdemeanor conviction which causes one to lose a Constitutional right (as much as I can recall anyhow). For that reason only I am opposed to the ruling.
You can go to jail for a misdemeanor. That's your right to liberty being taken away.
-
You can go to jail for a misdemeanor. That's your right to liberty being taken away.
But not for life.
-
But not for life.
I haven't had the chance to read the ruling and/or dissent, so I'm winging it here (and strongly reserve the right to get smarter once better informed).
However, for this, at least there has been some adjudication of criminality on the part of those losing the right. They have a criminal conviction, including all of the due process rights appertaining thereto. That means they have a right to a jury, and a unanimous verdict, on the basis of a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
Contrast that with the fact that you can be barred from purchasing a gun in the event of an indictment. That's a one-party (prosecution) proceeding, with no requirement for unanimity, and a "probable cause" standard.
Even worse, the "No Fly, No Buy" standard that is supported by both major party presidential candidates, which is mere suspicion, with no process to remove oneself, and no right to even be informed of the charges against you.