Justice Thomas speaks for the 1st time in 10 years on gun case

[Wolfie]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has become famous for never asking questions during oral arguments. Monday, he broke 10 years of silence with a question, and what a question it was:

"Can you give me an area [of law] where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right," Thomas asked of the federal government's lawyer, who was arguing that a federal ban on gun ownership for certain persons who are convicted of domestic violence offenses at the state level should apply if the offense was committed "recklessly." [...]

He wanted to know "how long" the suspension of Second Amendment rights was for persons prohibited under federal law to possess firearms, and he pressed Eisenstein to name any other legal analog where the federal government could permanently curtail constitutional rights following a conviction for an unrelated offense.

[Mr. AR50]

Once again, an anti-gun Obama lap dog is defeated with logic and facts.   

Thank you Justice Clarence Thomas!

[Wolfie]

I agree with Thomas on this. But how is this a loss when the case has not been decided?

[Buckeye 50]

OK, I will bite: 


....arguing that a federal ban on gun ownership for certain persons who are convicted of domestic violence offenses at the state level should apply if the offense was committed "recklessly." [...]




Is there any other way to commit such a crime other than, "recklessly?"

Pat

[Wolfie]

You need 1 or 4 Culpable States to commit a crime.

Intent

Knowledge

Ommission

Reckless

Reckless would mean a spouse got mad and threw something in the house and it hit someone by accident causing trauma.

Does that mean you lose your permit? It should not, unless you threw your gun. Now this is just a example.

[Mr. AR50]

I agree with Thomas on this. But how is this a loss when the case has not been decided?

Ok, so I got the cart in front of the horse.   

What can I say, I'm an optimist.

[DM1906]

Once again, an anti-gun Obama lap dog is defeated with logic and facts.   

Thank you Justice Clarence Thomas!

It's absolutely a win for 2A supporters, in that, the question was asked. It will steer the argument toward Constitutionality, rather than emotional. Thomas breaking silence isn't surprising. Justice Scalia would likely have asked the same or similar question.

[DM1906]

You need 1 or 4 Culpable States to commit a crime.

Intent

Knowledge

Ommission

Reckless

Reckless would mean a spouse got mad and threw something in the house and it hit someone by accident causing trauma.

It isn't nearly that simple, and that isn't an example of "reckless". "Culpable" homicide (manslaughter), or negligence causing injury, requires none of the above. Felony murder requires none of the above.

Does that mean you lose your permit? It should not, unless you threw your gun. Now this is just a example.

No. Throwing a firearm isn't a firearm incident or gun crime, in itself, by common definition, absent intended and designed use of said firearm. These are two and very separate acts, not unlike throwing a hammer, which isn't a hardware incident, other than a hardware tool was used as a device of injury. Pointing/brandishing/firing a firearm (toward a person, with intent to do so) is a firearm assault, although the firearm is merely the contrivance (the bullet/projectile is the actual, causal device of injury), not unlike a hammer is used to drive a nail, if a nail were driven into a person to cause an injury in relation to a malicious, injurious act. The only difference between the two is, firearms are regulated and hammers are not, although you are many times more likely to be maliciously injured or killed with a hammer.

[NewShooter]

I think that is an example of recklessness. At least in Ohio. Most states statutorily define culpable mental states. Check your laws for what they are in your state.

Interestingly enough, a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence is not necessarily a disability under Ohio law. You won't be able to buy any new guns from an ffl, but you can still buy from private parties, and the guns you own can't be confiscated because of the conviction. I don't know the specifics of the case before the Supreme Court, but if it's a loser for the 2A it might turn on a similar issue.

[sqlbullet]

To be honest I kinda wish the plaintiff would withdraw on this case.  With the death of Scalia we have four justices that will sacrifice their mother to an earthworm to remove gun rights, three justices who seem to understand the role of the gun in human rights, and a swing vote that I think will go against us.  The best we can hope for is a draw.

And this would be a major blow to the momentum of Heller and McDonald, not to mention the rest of the bill of rights.  It would establish that fundamental human rights can be denied on the basis of the violation of trivial laws.

Ideally I would like to see the court question why in domestic violence cases are held to a different standard for battery than other battery charges.  If I punch my neighbor drunkenly cause he didn't show respect while asking me to pick up the garbage cans I knocked over in my stupor, I keep my guns.  If I slap my wife lightly during a disagreement I lose my guns.  This seems like a good bit of in-equality before the law.

[Wolfie]

If you hit your wife with a gun, not only will the judge issue a Order or Protection, he will take your guns away.

The Family Courts are not a mans friend regardless what party the judge is from.

[DM1906]

If you hit your wife with a gun, not only will the judge issue a Order or Protection, he will take your guns away.

The Family Courts are not a mans friend regardless what party the judge is from.

Hitting someone with a gun is a felony (if the elements of the crime apply), despite the fact it was a gun. No different than hitting someone with a hammer. You lose your right to possess guns because of the violent felony, not because the bludgeoning weapon was a gun. The topic of discussion is in regards to applicable misdemeanors, NOT felonies, and no example of spousal battery was cited. In many, if not most states, spousal battery is a felony, regardless of modus operandi, and in every case, a protection order is an option, and often required. Many states have enacted laws that enumerate spousal battery as a strict liability felony statute, meaning, the facts don't matter until trial, and victim cooperation isn't required (the "victim" becomes "the people", rather than the spouse). If prosecuted, it's a felony, despite any facts. Also, "spouse", as it applies to most spousal laws, doesn't simply mean a person to whom you are married. The same laws may apply to a brother-in-law who lives with you. Most unfortunate, IMO.

[Wolfie]

Misdemeanor offenses.

You can hit someone with a gun and cause no injury.

"Can you give me an area [of law] where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right," Thomas asked of the federal government's lawyer, who was arguing that a federal ban on gun ownership for certain persons who are convicted of domestic violence offenses at the state level should apply if the offense was committed "recklessly." [...]

He wanted to know "how long" the suspension of Second Amendment rights was for persons prohibited under federal law to possess firearms, and he pressed Eisenstein to name any other legal analog where the federal government could permanently curtail constitutional rights following a conviction for an unrelated offense.

[DM1906]

Misdemeanor offenses.

You can hit someone with a gun and cause no injury.

"Can you give me an area [of law] where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right," Thomas asked of the federal government's lawyer, who was arguing that a federal ban on gun ownership for certain persons who are convicted of domestic violence offenses at the state level should apply if the offense was committed "recklessly." [...]

He wanted to know "how long" the suspension of Second Amendment rights was for persons prohibited under federal law to possess firearms, and he pressed Eisenstein to name any other legal analog where the federal government could permanently curtail constitutional rights following a conviction for an unrelated offense.

The point I made (attempted) was, the difference between a spouse and a non-spouse battery (you specified "wife"). If you "hit" anyone with a firearm, there will be injury, however slight. If you hit your "wife" with a firearm, it's a felony (as conditioned as above). None of this has any bearing to Thomas' question. His question was very simple, and specific. Why complicate it? "What if's" are an argument for a prosecutor, but rarely get out of the gate.

[dakota1911]

I think the reason he broke silence was because Justice Scalia  is no longer there.