Another gun case
Buried quietly at the bottom of this article on warrantless searches, I saw this:
In the second case, the court will consider Randy Edward Hayes’ argument that the government was wrong to charge him with violating a federal law barring people convicted in domestic violence cases from possessing firearms.
In 1994, Hayes pleaded guilty in Marion County, W.Va., to the minor crime of battery following an incident in which his wife was the victim.
In 2004, police responded to a domestic violence call from Hayes’s home and found a Winchester rifle. They later discovered that he had possessed at least four other rifles following his 1994 guilty plea.
Hayes was indicted on federal charges of possessing firearms following conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence, a reference to the 1994 case.
Last year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., agreed with Hayes’s argument that the language of the West Virginia law on battery in the 1994 case needed to contain specific wording about a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim.
In the Justice Department brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the solicitor general said nine other appeals courts have rejected the interpretation adopted by the appeals court in Richmond.
So, after Heller, there’s an opportunity to decide the scope of reasonable restrictions on domestic violence? I thought I was on to something but realized others beat me to it.
My thoughts? If Hayes can’t be trusted with a gun, then he can’t be trusted with a car, some gas, a golf club, or a pointy stick.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:02 am
A closer look reveals that the question to be answered in Hayes is whether or not the domestic relation has to be an element of the offense before one’s right to arms is
infringed. . . er . . . abridged. I’m not saying that Heller won’t play a part, but the evidence available at this point would seem to say not. Otherwise, I would have expected the court to ask the parties to address that issue in their briefs.-cliff
March 25th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Last year, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., agreed with Hayes’s argument that the language of the West Virginia law on battery in the 1994 case needed to contain specific wording about a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim.
OK, I’m confused. What the hell does “contain specific wording about a domestic relationship” mean? Is the argument that if you beat up your wife, then you don’t lose your guns, but if you beat up your girlfriend, you do? What’s the deal?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:44 am
No, the argument is that if the statute criminalizes beating up anybody and you happen to beat up your wife, live-in girlfriend, or other “domestic relation” you don’t lose your gun rights. If, however, the statute makes the “domestic relation” an element of the offense, that is, the prosecutor not only must prove that you beat someone up but that the person beat up was also your wife, live-in girlfriend, etc, then you do lose your gun rights. At least, that is what Hayes is arguing. The counter example is that if you beat up your neighbor, you still get to keep your guns.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
OK, I think I’m getting there. Let me make sure I understand:
Beat up neighbor: keep gun.
Beat up wife: 1) If charged with “Regular” Assault: Keep gun. 2) Charged with “Domestic” Assault: Lose Gun.
Hayes argues that he was charged with 1) and not 2) and therefore should be able to keep his guns.
Is this correct, or am I still missing something?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
That is essentially it. There are nuances, but for the big picture, that is it.
It is worth noting that Hayes never challanged the Constitutionality of the law, but merely its interpretation. I think this one is going to come down to what we in the law biz call “statutory construction”, that is, how to interpret a statute that is not clear.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
So wouldn’t the legislature’s obvious response be to make all Battery/Assault crimes carry the punishment of a loss of 2A rights?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
That would be one possible response, yes. Another, more sensible one would be to repeal the Lautenberg Amendment and only make felonies carry the punishment of a loss of 2A rights. Beat up anyone a little bit, keep your guns. Beat up anyone badly enough to constitute a felony, lose ’em.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:40 am
But Xrlq! That would require the Court to determine that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right, and requires “strict scrutiny” of laws infringing on that right!
We can’t have that! Then all sorts of riff-raff will be allowed to own nasty guns!
(BTW, Uncle – beating you to something relating to guns and gun laws is damned hard to do!)
March 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Xrlq, since when has gov’t ever done anything sensible?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Kevin, you may be right. Expecting Congress to do something sensible on its own is always dicey, and the chances of them doing so to help misdemeanant domestic abusers is slim to none. Then again, if the court does end up applying strict scrutiny (a big if – my money is on them NOT spelling out the standard this year since DC’s ban is sweeping enough to fail every imaginable test), then I suspect that the lifetime ban on gun ownership by felons, at least nonviolent ones, may be in jeopardy also. Felons are generally bad guys, so I’d grant that a lifetime ban on gun ownership by felons would meet the Clement standard of “substantially” related to an “important” government purpose. But narrowly tailored? I think not.