SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS GUN BAN FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS

fAfter reflection, I changes the original post. This case was not about the Second Amendment, and the Court continues to avoid clarifying the Amendment, not having decided a Second Amendment case since 2010, in spite of the raging controversy over gun control and the Second Amendment.

"The Supreme Court ruled  [6-2] Monday to uphold a federal law that prohibits those convicted of domestic violence from owning guns, regardless of whether the violence was premeditated or not.
The case in question involved two Maine men who claimed they should not be barred from owning firearms after pleading guilty to hitting their partners. Both men had been charged with possessing guns while having past domestic abuse misdemeanor convictions.
The justices rejected arguments from the men that the law only covers premeditated acts of abuse, not acts of abuse committed in the heat of an argument."

See the syllabus and opinion here. One of the problems with the holding is that it deprives the defendant of his Second Amendment right to possess firearms for life, for a misdemeanor. Such strong collateral consequences are usually reserved for felonies.  Here the ban could be imposed for  a misdemeanor reckless assault.  This seems too much of a collateral consequence of a conviction for a misdemeanor.

Sotomayor and Thomas dissented on the statutory interpretation issues.  Only Thomas mentioned the Second Amendment.

“Section 922(g)(9) does far more than “close [a] dangerous loophole” by prohibiting individuals who had committed felony domestic violence from possessing guns simply because they pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Ante, at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted). It imposes a lifetime ban on possessing a gun for all non felony domestic offenses, including so-called infractions or summary offenses. §§921(a)(33)(A)(ii), 922(g)(9); 27 CFR §478.11 (2015) (de­fining a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to include crimes punishable only by a fine). These infractions, like traffic tickets, are so minor that individuals do not have a right to trial by jury. See Lewis v. United States, 518 U. S. 322, 325–326 (1996).

Today the majority expands §922(g)(9)’s sweep into patently unconstitutional territory. Under the majority’s reading, a single conviction  under a state assault statute for recklessly causing an injury to a family member—such as by texting while driving—can now trigger a lifetime  ban on gun ownership. And while it may be true that such incidents are rarely prosecuted, this decision leaves the right to keep and bear arms up to the discretion of federal, state, and local prosecutors.

We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly. At oral argument the Government could not identify any other fundamental constitutional right that a person could lose forever by a single conviction for an infraction pun­ishable only by a fine. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36–40. Compare the First Amendment. Plenty of States still criminalize libel. See, e.g., Ala. Code. §13A–11–160 (2015); Fla. Stat.§836.01 (2015); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:47 (West 2016);Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 94, §98C (2014); Minn. Stat. §609.765 (2014); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §644:11 (2007); Va. Code Ann. §18.2–209 (2014); Wis. Stat. §942.01 (2005). I have little doubt that the majority would strike down an absolute ban on publishing by a person previously convicted of misdemeanor libel. In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the Court continues to “relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6).”