- Share This Post
- submit
- 3
-
Sparkle (0)
Returning to the US Supreme Court after treatment for pancreatic cancer, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a 7-2 majority decision upholding a federal law prohibiting gun ownership by people with domestic violence convictions. (You can read the opinion, along with the dissent authored by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Thomas voted with the majority in part.) Domestic violence advocates hail the decision, with some bloggers noting that it's one more reason why Ginsburg's presence as the only woman on the High court is so important.
Here's the case as summarized by the Sentencing Law and Policy blog: In 1994, Randall Edward Hayes was convicted of battery against his wife, a misdemeanor. (They have since divorced.)In 2004, police came to Hayes' West Virginia home in response to a 911 call and found a rifle on the premises. Under the 1997 Lautenberg Amendment, people with domestic violence convictions are banned from gun ownership - a proscription usually reserved for convicted felons. Hayes tried to have the 2005 indictment thrown out on the basis of a technicality in the wording in the West Virginia statute.
The advocacy group Legal Momentum praised the decision:
“The Supreme Court’s
ruling will undoubtedly improve the safety of victims of domestic
violence by keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of convicted
perpetrators. We have seen time and again that guns and domestic
violence are a lethal combination. By restricting offenders’ access to
firearms, this decision helps to protect victims from attacks that
could cost them their lives.”
The National Network to End Domestic Violence was also pleased:
“Arming the people who brutally beat their spouses or partners is a
recipe for disaster,” Else said. “The Supreme Court made the right
decision by upholding the domestic violence gun ban, keeping guns out
of the hands of batterers and helping victims recovering from abuse to
stay safe.”
Ruthann Robson of Feminist Law Professors noted that the decision underscores the importance of Bader Ginsburg's role as the only woman on the High Court:
Ginsburg’s authorship of an opinion concerning domestic violence served
as a stark reminder that she is the only woman on the United States
Supreme Court. (Compared with Australia’s High Court, which now has
three of its seven positions filled by women, which I’ve blogged here.)
Bobby Frederick at the South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog urges attorneys to study the decision because it could have implications for a wide range of defendants:
The definition of a crime of domestic violence under federal law is
important because the fact that a person is subject to later federal
prosecution for possession of a weapon is a collateral consequence of
the conviction; another important collateral consequence that attorneys
often do not consider is that a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence can have immigration consequences as well. Many
attorneys routinely plead CDV's down to assault and battery charges,
under the mistaken assumption that this will exempt them from the
federal gun laws, to their clients' detriment.
In the comment thread on my recent post on the murder of Aasiya Zubair Hasan, I asked about the measures we can take to protect women from their abusers. Hasan's murderer did not use a gun, so this decision doesn't apply directly to her case. However, I wonder more broadly, do you agree with domestic violence advocates who say that this decision will help save women's lives?
Media credit: the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (via Oyez )
