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.

Democrat Senators Push To Force Hobby Lobby To Go Against Religious Beliefs And Comply With Obamacare in Supreme Court

Democratic senators intervened Tuesday in the Supreme Court fight over whether ObamaCare can force the company Hobby Lobby to provide contraceptive coverage to workers, arguing that "secular" businesses should not be exempt from the mandate.

The 19 senators planned to file a brief before the court, which is still weeks away from considering the closely watched case. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who planned to make her case on the Senate floor, adamantly defended the Obama administration's side.

  "What's at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act," she said in prepared remarks.

But Republican senators returned fire, jumping to Hobby Lobby's defense in a brief of their own.
"The ability to practice the faith we choose is one of our great constitutional rights. The Obama administration's contraceptive mandate stomps on that right," Sen. David Vitter said in a statement. He joined Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; John Cornyn, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah in the brief.

The dueling arguments come as the Supreme Court prepares to consider the case. The justices said in November they would take up the issue, which has divided the lower courts in the face of roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies asking to be spared from having to cover some or all forms of contraception.

The Obama administration promotes the law's provision of a range of preventive care, free of charge, as a key benefit of the health care overhaul. Contraception is included in the package of cost-free benefits, which opponents say is an attack on the religious freedom of employers.

The court will consider two cases. One involves Hobby Lobby Inc., an Oklahoma City-based arts and crafts chain with 13,000 full-time employees. Hobby Lobby won in the lower courts.

The other case is an appeal from Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a Pennsylvania company that employs 950 people in making wood cabinets. Lower courts rejected the company's claims.

The court said the cases will be combined for arguments, probably in late March. A decision should come by late June.

The cases center on the provision of the law that requires most employers that offer health insurance to their workers to provide the range of preventive health benefits. In both instances, the Christian families that own the companies say that insuring some forms of contraception violates their religious beliefs.

The key issue is whether profit-making corporations may assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose.

The brief from Democratic senators on Tuesday argued that exempting for-profit businesses from the mandate would be "inconsistent" with that 1993 law.