2nd Amendment Under Attack: Ruling says any domestic violence can prevent Gun Ownership. Pushing and Shoving could constitute domestic violence

Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court  issued a broad interpretation of a federal law that makes it a crime for people convicted of domestic violence to possess guns.

The court refused to consider a challenge to the law based on the Second Amendment, saying that argument had received only a “cursory nod” in the briefs. Instead, the court considered the meaning of the term domestic violence, with the majority concluding that it encompassed acts “that one might not characterize as ‘violent’ in a non-domestic context.”

Interpreting Congress’ law on firearm prohibition for criminals, 18 U.S.C. § 922. This law did not previously apply to people convicted of certain types of domestic violence because of the phrase “use… of physical force” as found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C). Section (g)(8)(C) criminalizes gun possession for individuals subject to a court order that “prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.” Until the Supreme Court’s decision inUnited States v. Castleman, the phrase “physical force” in section (g)(8)(C) was interpreted to mean only “violent force” enacted upon one’s spouse and not any other type of force that might be considered “less violent,” such as hair pulling, pushing, grabbing, etc.

However, the Court’s holding now interprets “physical force” to mean any type of domestic violence, even cases of domestic violence that might not seem “violent” at first glance (fromSCOTUSblog). Much of the precedent for the decision in United States v. Castleman comes from the 2010 case Johnson v. United States, in which a conviction of battery was also classified as a “violent felony.” This new interpretation of “physical force” means that section (g)(8)(C) of Congress’ law on firearm prohibition for criminals applies to all people convicted of domestic violence, and it is now a crime for such individuals to possess firearms.

The case concerned James A. Castleman, a Tennessee man who in 2001 was convicted of assault in state court for causing bodily injury to the mother of his child. Court records do not say precisely what he did or what injuries the woman sustained.

When Mr. Castleman was indicted under the federal gun law, he argued that it did not apply to him because his state conviction did not qualify as a crime of domestic violence. Though the federal law defines a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as one involving the use of physical force, he argued that the state law under which he was charged did not require proof of such force.

A federal trial judge agreed, saying one could theoretically violate the state law by tricking a victim into drinking a poisoned beverage. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision, though the justices disagreed on the rationale.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for six justices, said that domestic violence must be understood broadly to include “seemingly minor acts.” The word violence standing alone connotes substantial force, she said, but that is not true of domestic violence.

She gave examples of what might qualify as only domestic violence: pushing, grabbing, shoving, hair pulling and “a squeeze of the arm that causes a bruise.”

Since Mr. Castleman had pleaded guilty to having “caused bodily injury,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, the use of physical force serious enough to amount to domestic violence could be assumed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion.

In a concurrence, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed that the federal law applied to Mr. Castleman. But he objected to the notion that domestic violence encompassed more acts than violence did, calling that an absurdity “at war with the English language.”

Justice Scalia criticized Justice Sotomayor for relying on “law-review articles, foreign government bureaus and similar sources” for her broader definition. Such sources, he said, “are entitled to define ‘domestic violence’ any way they want.”

“But when they (and the court) impose their all-embracing definition on the rest of us, they not only distort the law, they impoverish the language,” Justice Scalia wrote. “When everything is domestic violence, nothing is. Congress will have to come up with a new word (I cannot imagine what it would be) to denote actual domestic violence.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a separate concurrence in the case, United States v. Castleman, No. 12-1371.

Is Ben Carson Really A Conservative?

Before conservatives jump on the bandwagon for  Dr. Ben Carson’s  you may want to review his expressed beliefs  on gun control.

Appearing on Glenn Beck‘s radio show this past week, Dr. Benjamin Carson took a vastly different stance from most conservatives on the issue of gun control, claiming you shouldn’t be able to own semi-automatic weapons in large cities.

When asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”

But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”

“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.

However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”

 Ben Carson says he is not running for president but he is making the media rounds as if he is planning too. 

Then there is a group raising money in case he heeds the call, Ben Carson for president. We promise you—for real and sure—if Ben Carson does not run for president, that group will not give anyone their money back. If you listened closely to the video, above, you heard Dr. Carson give a defense of that group, “they are building infrastructure in case I run.”