Supreme Court Rules Against Guns for Domestic Abusers

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law Monday that bans people convicted of domestic violence from buying or owning guns.

"We at Hope’s Door applaud the U.S. Supreme Court for upholding a federal law that keeps guns out of the hands of persons convicted of domestic violence," said CarlLa Horton, executive director of the Westchester-based shelter for battered women, in response to the news. "According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, every 14 hours in America, a woman is fatally shot by a current or former intimate partner. The court’s decision will help in keeping guns out of the hands of persons who have lost the right to buy or own a gun and will help keep women safer."

The intersection between domestic violence and firearms is well-documented, Horton said in a recent letter to Patch. The presence of a firearm in the home of an abused woman increases her risk of homicide by at least 500 percent ... In fact, 57 percent of mass shootings are related to family violence.

Two Maine men who challenged the law had been found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence and argued that, under common law, because their acts were "reckless" instead of "knowing or intentional," they should be able to keep their guns.

The nation's highest court ruled otherwise.

"Congress passed §922(g)(9) to take guns out of the hands of abusers convicted under the misdemeanor assault laws then in general use in the States," Justice Elana Kagan wrote in the majority opinion.

Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong were both convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence against their respective partners under Maine law. Voisine was later arrested for killing a bald eagle, and police found a rifle in his possession. A drug search of Armstrong's house led police to his guns and ammunition.

The men said their "reckless" behavior was enough for a misdemeanor charge under Maine law but not the federal law that would lead to a firearms ban.

They said that under common law the federal law does not apply to domestic violence committed in the heat of the moment. The court did not agree.

“The common law traditionally used a variety of overlapping and, frankly, confusing phrases to describe culpable mental states—among them, specific intent, general intent, presumed intent, willfulness, and malice,” Kagan wrote. "Whether and where conduct that we would today describe as reckless fits into that obscure scheme is anyone’s guess."

The case was also notable as, during oral arguments, the usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas posed a question from the bench for the first time in more than 10 years.

He asked a Justice Department attorney whether violating any other law leads to a loss of a constitutional right.

Image via Shutterstock