SCOTUS (9-0): No guns if convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lannister80, Mar 27, 2014.

  1. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #1
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-guns-20140327,0,74538.story

    Just curious if the peanut gallery had any comments (limits on 2A, etc), especially about the 9-0 decision.

    Also, the article uses conflicting terms. In one place they say "pleaded guilty to", and in another they say "convicted of". Those are not the same thing.
     
  2. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
  3. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #3
    Makes total sense, even for Scalia. I really don't see how anyone could see this any other way, even our most conservative members here.
     
  4. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #4
    I am a firearms owner, shooter, collector and general enthusiast of any finely designed and crafted machinery. I am also a fierce defender of the right to keep and bear arms.

    That being said... the ruling makes perfect sense. Those who engage in domestic violence are right down there with other "scum of the earth" types. Allowing them access to firearms is insanity.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    Seems like a good ruling. Anything that restricts gun ownership by people who might use them in a crime is a good thing.

    Though I am surprised that the Supreme Court could come up with a 9-0 ruling on something relating to guns.
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Quite rightly no one wants to defend wife beaters.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    How far away from wife-beating is muscling your way into the delivery room?
     
  8. TPadden, Mar 27, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014

    TPadden macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    #8
    Both posts highlight the problem; you have to realize that each state gets to define both domestic relationship and violence differently. The fact that one immediately jumps to guilty of "wife beating" mentality is part of the problem (not even asking who's the wife in a same-sex relationship?).

    In California, for example misdemeanor domestic violence may not involve ANY physical violence or even contact. There violence is defined as "abuse" which is also defined as in the mind of the "abused"...... California Penal Code requires only "reasonable apprehension". My experience was many misdemeanor convictions were plea agreements merely based on the costs of defending oneself in court.

    But, hey, it's a done deal ;)......
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    A 9-0 SC ruling on a common sense issue. A little bit of faith in America was restored today.


    BOOM!
     
  10. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #10
    Poor people can't afford a good legal defense so pleading to a misdemeanor is a common course of action so they resume their lives and keep food on the table. Even people guilty if nothing will plead for the sake of livelihood.

    This will disproportionately affect the poor and less educated in society because the legal system is rigged in favor if the rich.

    Misdemeanors should not be grounds for losing ones constitutional rights.
     
  11. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #11
    i am for strong gun control, so in principle this is absolutely fine by me.
    my only objection is that it would have to NOT work retroactively in the case guilt was entered by plea.
    in other words, i think it's very possible that some people would have not pleaded guilty, if they had known that was going to limit their rights.

    a plea is often the results of weighing the alternatives and the odds of the possible outcomes, and it might or might not have something to do with the truth of the case.
    so:
    apply to new cases: yes
    apply retroactively: no
     
  12. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #12
    The poor sell their rights every day. It's less likely to be to the state, but that's just because they do it privately so often. There's a good documentary on this, I'll see if I can find it.
     
  13. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    I think by law all prosecutors should be required to disclose that pleading to a misdemeanor will resort in forfeiture of civil rights.

    Obviously a guy that has beaten the hell out of his wife and there is solid proof of such will take the plea. The odds are against him anyway.

    But in a case where an argument was heated but not violent or a nutty companion is looking for leverage by playing the DV card and there is nothing but "he said-she said", an innocent person will fight because they value their rights.
     
  14. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #14
    If it was just a heated argument and no one laid their hands on anyone, why would you just plead guilty?? :confused::confused::confused:

    I would fight my case regardless of whether my constitutional rights were at stake or not if I was truly innocent.
     
  15. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    In many municipalities if the police come out on a domestic call, they have to haul someone away if someone in the home indicates DV has taken place. They can't just leave and risk someone getting killed 5 minutes later. Violence doesn't have to be witnessed or need evidence at the moment of arrest.

    Lets see how long you would do in county, waiting to be processed for domestic violence despite you knowing you didn't touch anyone. Scumbag state prosecutor comes in and says you can go him in an hour if you plead out. Odds are you'll jump all over it, especially if you have kids that depend on your income, or you yourself is living paycheck to paycheck.
     
  16. bobfitz14 macrumors 65816

    bobfitz14

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #16
    My initial reaction. Second reaction is overwhelming support of the decision.
     
  17. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #17
    In total support, wife beaters should also be on the same kind of lists that they put sex offenders on.
     
  18. CalWizrd Suspended

    CalWizrd

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Location:
    NYC/Raleigh, NC
    #18
    I would bet, based upon your posts in this thread, that you are under 30 years old, and not very experienced in the ways of the world.

    Defending legal action, independent of guilt or innocence, can be a hugely expensive proposition (especially if you'd like something better than mediocre representation). There are many accused who simply don't have the resources (money) to receive adequate defense.

    Hence the reality of taking a plea deal...
     
  19. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #19
    it depends of what the stakes are.
    if the costs (not only economical) of the 'fight' -or the associated risks- are much higher than the proposed penalty, then you might decide not to go that way and accept some sort of deal.

    but if years later that deal is changed on you with added penalties (in this case the loss of rights), then it's not fair.
     
  20. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #20
    I see your point, but I would also wager that the majority of people convicted for domestic violence are probably guilty. Of course there are ones who aren't, but the system isn't perfect.
     
  21. Tinmania macrumors 68040

    Tinmania

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Location:
    Aridzona
    #21
    It worked retroactively the last time. There were police officers who had to resign or were dismissed.

    The issue I have with this ruling is the lack of violence part. Here in AZ, a property state, you can be charged for damaging what is essentially your own property. As an example if you bought a tablet, became frustrated with it, and decided to just smash it you could be charged with criminal damage domestic violence. Or it could be a TV that you had before you even met your domestic partner. They don't even need to be there.




    Michael
     
  22. ElectronGuru, Mar 27, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014

    ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #22
    Im not about to defend wife beaters, but the system is rigged to elicit admission of guilt, before, during and after trial:

    http://video.pbs.org/video/2216784391/

    (not the specific video I was looking for, but still relevant to the thread)
     
  23. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #23
    It's a terrible system that disproportionally affects the poor which don't have the resources to defend against a charge, innocent or otherwise.

    Domestically violence is an incredibly potent charge as well, that doesn't have to be witnessed or substantiated to get legal action started. All it takes is a phone call and allegation to seriously turn your life upside to the extent that you just want it to be over so you plead out.
     
  24. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #24
    yeah.
    it's more tricky than it seems.
    on the one hand domestic violence is a real, serious issue.
    on the other hand, an hyper-rigid system could easily lead to abuses.
    it's always hard to find a proper balance.

    in this case i don't personally put a lot of stock in the penalty itself (loss of gun privileges), except obviously for those who need them for their profession.
    but the principle itself is a little troubling.

    and i still see no reason to make such a law (or almost any law) retroactive
     
  25. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25
    More than that I don't think we should be celebrating any time government starts creating ways to take away civil rights for life. Like a thief that goes to jail for ten years, serves his time and gets out, but still can't vote.

    If justice is served why is he still being punished.

    The stripping of civil rights is something that we as people should for sure being resisting and giving a hell of a lot of scrutiny.

    Due process is under attack
    Freedom of speech is under attack
    The right to bear arms is always under siege
    Miranda is a technicality

    People need to understand that civil rights must all be protected vehemently because once men in power start taking away they won't stop unless you force them to with extreme measures.
     

Share This Page