« Another Bloomberg mayor bites the dust | Main | Sean Penn and firearms laws »
Oral argument in US v. Castleman
Here's a summary, from SCOTUSBlog.
The question is how to construe the Federal ban on possession after conviction for a DV misdemeanor. The Federal ban includes offenses that have use or threat of force as an element, whereas this State law forbids causing "bodily injury," defined to include an abrasion, physical pain, temporary illness, or impairment of the function of an organ or a bodily member. It'd thus include, oh, dosing a person with an emetic or a laxative, giving them the flu, etc., which are not uses of force. So does a conviction under that statute qualify as a Federal bar? As the Justices' questions suggest, this is a tricky question.
· 17th Century ~ · Gun Control Act of 68
2 Comments | Leave a comment
Totally agree with this comment. As the Chief Justice stated the position of the U.S. Attorney has no limiting principle. Congress wanted to catch people who were charged with Felonies and pleaded down to Misdemeanors.....instead what has happened is countless lives have been ruined by this law since it has forced people out of the military, police officers have lost their jobs....etc....all for a minor offense, sometimes for nothing more then a slight touch.....Oh and BTW attorney's in contested divorce cases have this at the top of the playlist and courts hand them down like candy.......ridiculous statute that should have never been introduced and passed (although I doubt many in congress even knew it was there since it was tagged onto the 1996 spending bill)....yes Launtenberg was a slim ball who knew how to work the system.....
Agree..tie goes to the runner...and in this case it is Castleman.....
It shouldn't really be that tricky. The presumption is supposed to be that if the legislature intended for those sorts of things to be covered by the statute they would have spelled them out, since they've done so other places. I.e., a tie goes to the runner.