I am sure regular readers are tired of me linking the Heller Second Amendment case to various sentencing issues, but a new Supreme Court cert. grant today is only going to fuel my gun fires. Here are the basics from this post at SCOTUSblog:



Though it appears that Hayes is only about a technical statutory issue, the case could end up being about a lot more if Heller declares that there is an enforceable individual right to keep a gun. Here are the key facts in Hayes from the Fourth Circuit opinion on which cert was sought by the Justice Department:


This fascinating little case should help everyone understand why Solicitor General Paul Clement is justifiably concerned about a broad pro-gun constitutional ruling in Heller. If the Second Amendment truly protects an individual right to domestic self protection, prosecuting Randy Edward Hayes for having a Winchester in his home seems very constitutionally troublesome. And, at the very least, if Heller says anything nice about the constitution and gun possession, the doctrine of constitutional doubt ought to impact how the statutory issue in Hayes plays out.

I wonder if the NRA will file a brief on behalf of Randy Edward Hayes in the Supreme Court. I wonder if VP Dick Cheney will sign a brief including members of Congress on behalf of Randy Edward Hayes in the Supreme Court. I wonder if any other bloggers will connect the dots between Heller and Hayes like I do. I wonder if everyone just thinks I'm just a gun-crazy, latte-sipping blogger.

now I'm not saying this is the case here, but it has been known to happen that a disapointed or angry wife will file domestic or sexual assault charges falsely against their husband, and that he will either plead guilty or be convicted, as the court system strongly favors women in these circumstances. While I agree that someone who abuses their spouse, or a rapist should not legally be given a firearm, there are good men currently imprisoned, on probation, or with these crimes on their record who are completely innocent.

The specific issue is whether the federal ban at issue requires that the convicted individual and the victim in the underlying crime have a domestic relationship — that is, as a spouse, parent or guardian.

I can't make much of a connection between this and Heller. This guy seems to be arguing that since he didn't have a domestic relationship with the victim he can't be guilty of domestic violence. The 'facts' given seem to say he did.

The article doesn't make sense to me. Is the writer is implying that if Heller is upheld then convicted abusers will be able to have guns?

Personal opinion? Only gun in his house should be owned by the woman, to cover herself as she runs away from this abuser.

Not sure how I feel on this one. If someone pounds on their wife/live-in partner, they are scum and I don't know that I want to give that person a weapon to cause more damage.

JMO, YMMV, etc, etc.

You are right though, it does make for an interesting legal issue.

-Mark

Say that now... till your ex-wife states how you abused her (unless of course you agree to the divorse proceeding on her terms). Or your child is upset because you won't allow her, at the ripe old age of 12, to have a boyfriend (who is 17), so she calls the cops because you spanked her. Or your 14 yr old son who is drinking an on drugs already; decides he thinks HE should be in charge of the house, so he calls the cops about how you abuse him... see the trend here? not all 'abusers' are really 'abusers'.

Once you are no longer in a domestic relationship with a person, the limits on your rights should end.

And remember - as Mr. Unger pointed out - Gun laws don't work!

Mostly-

A misdemeanor is a low level "crime" having nothing to do with gun violence. In fact I think guns are less likely to be used in a domestic assault than an assault of the street. Misdemeanor assult is usually pushing and shoving.

This stuff becomes a game with many couples, the police have to arrest a person if there is evidence of unwanted touching, and the lost guns are usually the biggest penalty.

This was just an excuse for more gun control law. Spousal abusers are unpopular so nobody stuck up for them. Hopefully the law will be struck down.

I don't like spousal abusers, but it has nothing to do with guns, these laws usually just increase the frustration that leads to abuse, and makes it harder to settle these cases. And gun control doesn't work anyway.

Honestly, those scenarios, as well as a false rape allegation are what keep me awake at night. The thought that not only could I be convicted and imprisoned falsely, and after that have my rights taken away, all because of a lie that held more credibility in the eyes of the legal system than my truthful testimony. While my gut tells me that arming anyone with any form of violence on their record is a bad idea, scenarios like those above make me cautious. Where can we draw the line, and who decides where it gets drawn? Honestly, I'm starting to agree with Unger more and more, Gun laws don't work...

What can I say, I spent over half my life in a family that very loudly yelled, "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?", and "Guns are the DEVIL!". I'm becoming a reformed man, but it takes time.