The reasoning is tortuous, but settled law nonetheless. In Voisine, the court concluded that a reckless domestic assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under §922(g)(9), which prohibits firearm possession by those convicted of violent crimes. The word “reckless” is a legal term and ends up being twisted completely out of any rational shape. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented with the decision, but was overruled by the majority. Thomas’s dissent begins:
Federal law makes it a crime for anyone previously convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to possess a firearm “in or affecting commerce.” 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9). A “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” includes “an offense that . . . has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force . . . committed by [certain close family members] of the victim.” §921(a)(33)(A)(ii). In this case, petitioners were convicted under §922(g)(9) because they possessed firearms and had prior convictions for assault under Maine’s statute prohibiting “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person.” Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17–A, §207(1)(A) (2006). The question presented is whether a prior conviction under §207 has, as an element, the “use of physical force,” such that the conviction can strip someone of his right to possess a firearm. In my view, §207 does not qualify as such an offense, and the majority errs in holding otherwise. I respectfully dissent.
Parts I and II of Thomas’s dissent focus on the problems with treating reckless acts as qualifying violent offenses that involve the “use of physical force” under federal law.
Part III argues that the court fails to account for the potential Second Amendment implications of its decision. This part begins:
Even assuming any doubt remains over the reading of “use of physical force,” the majority errs by reading the statute in a way that creates serious constitutional problems. The doctrine of constitutional avoidance “command[s] courts, when faced with two plausible constructions of a statute—one constitutional and the other unconstitutional—to choose the constitutional reading.” Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 213 (2009) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 922(g)(9) is already very broad. It imposes a lifetime ban on gun ownership for a single intentional nonconsensual touching of a family member. A mother who slaps her 18-year-old son for talking back to her—an intentional use of force—could lose her right to bear arms forever if she is cited by the police under a local ordinance. The majority seeks to expand that already broad rule to any reckless physical injury or nonconsensual touch. I would not extend the statute into that constitutionally problematic territory.
Under the majority’s approach, a parent who has a car accident because he sent a text message while driving can lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash. This is obviously not the correct reading of §922(g)(9). The “use of physical force” does not include crimes involving purely reckless conduct. Because Maine’s statute punishes such conduct, it sweeps more broadly than the “use of physical force.” I respectfully dissent.
It is disappointing that Supreme Court justices could become so tangled in legal postulating that they would reach such a poorly reasoned decision. This is especially disconcerting because more conservative members of the court joined in on this preposterous decision. Perhaps the left leaning justices believe that any excuse whatever that will take away from citizens the right to own a gun is a good objective, and certainly we have seen that for the Left, the ends always justifies the means. But to suggest that such a minor and unrelated action could eliminate a basic, fundamental right truly shows how badly the law mangles appropriate outcomes. Justice Thomas was correct and showed basic common sense in his dissent. The rest of the justices should be ashamed of themselves, not only for a poorly reasoned decision, but for giving the citizens of this nation a good reason to disrespect and disparage the courts very ability to make a common sense ruling.
Source: washingtonpost.com
Democrats are communist appeasing socialist control freaks that are bordering on fascism.
Thank you Elizabeth DeMichele,POWERFUL,TRUTH,
and what we as American’s need’s to hear straight from the heart!
Ridiculous
Supreme Court is a f**e court set up to fool the little people !
THE PROBLEM WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS THAT THEY MOST OF THEM NEVER BEEN IN A COMBAT ZONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU NEVER GO TO WAR WITHOUT KNOWING WHO YOUR ENEMY IS, ” HOW DOES YOUR ENEMY THINKS SPECIALY OF YOU AS AN ENEMY, WHAT ARE THEIR WEAPONS, HOW THEY USE THEIR WEAPONS AND THE POWER OF THEIR WEAPONS, WHAT THE ENEMY’S PHILOSOPHY IS TOWARDS YOU AND MOST OF ALL WHAT ARE YOUR WEAPONS AND WHAT THEY CAN DO TO THE ENEMY, HOW TO USE YOUR WEAPONS AND WHEN TO USE THEM,
THE AMERICANS ENEMY IS NOT JUST ANY BODY THIS ENEMY HAS DESTROYED MANY NATIONS BECAUSE HIS MOST POWERFUL WEAPON IS DECEPTION, AND THE TOOL THEY USE IS THE ELECTRONIC, TV, RADIO, INTERNET, HOLYWOOD WITH ALL THEIR 90 % JEW CONTROL INDOCTRINATION MACHINE, THAT EVEN MAKES YOU PAY TO SEE YOUR OWN INDOCTRINATION, THE CHURCH WHERE THY HAVE A VERY STRONG HOLD ON THE SHEEP BY MAKEING THEM AFRAID OF THEIR OWN GOD THE ONE THY STARED BELIEVING THAT CAME TO SAVE THEM BUT END UP FEARING BECAUSE OF THE LIE THAT THE CHOSEN PEOPLE ARE NOT THEM THAT BELIEVE BUT THE ONES THAT HATE GOD.
THE ONES THAT DON’T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR GOD BUT IN A GOD OF DESTRUCTION WHICH IS THE ONE THEY WORSHIP BECAUSE THEY HAVE LEARN THAT FROM DEAD AND CHAOS THEY CAN PROFIT MORE WEALTH THAN BY BEEN GOOD LOVEING INDIVIDUALS.
THE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS OUR CONGRESS, SENATE AND WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN OCUPUPIED BY THESE MOSTROSITY OF MAKE BELIEVE HUMANS BUT ARE NOTHING BUT BEASTS THAT APEAR TO BE HUMAN, THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE CLEAN THEIR BUTTS WITH OUR CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY HATE HARMONY AND THE RULE OF LAW , UNLESS THAT LAW IS TO OPPRESS THE NON JEW.
THE NON JEW DON’T EVEN QUESTION WHY NO MATTER WHO GOES INTO ANY OF THOSE POSITIONS OF POWER THINGS DON’T CHANGE BUT ONLY TO GET WORST AND MORE OPPRESIVE TOWARDS NON JEWS.
THE NON JEWS HAVE AS THEIR MOST POWERFULL WEAPON THE TRUTH BUT YET THEY REFUSE TO PRACTICE TRUTH SO THEY LET THEMSELVES BE LED BY LIES. AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE LIES BUT DON’T MIND EVEN TO FIND OUT WHY?
YES OUT OF 9 CLOWNS DRESS IN BLACK AT LEAST 6 ARE JEWS OR MARRIED TO JEWS PERHAPS EVEN MORE AND SINCE OUR CONGRESS HAS AT LEAST 300+ JEWS OR MARRIED TO JEWS MEMBERS, THEY CHOSE WHO THE SUPREME CRIMINALS WILL BE NEXT, AS FAR AS THE SENATE IS EVEN WORST OUT OF 100 NO LESS THAN 90 ARE JEWS OR MARRIED TO JEWS , OUR WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN OCCUPIED BY NOTHING BUT JEWS FOR NEAR 100 YEARS OR MORE WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS LIKE IN THE CASE OF KENNEDY, ROOSEBELT, WHOM THE JEWS TRYED TO ASSESINATE BY POISONING HIM, AND REAGAN WHO WAS NOT A JEW ALL THE REST HAVE BEEN JEWS OR MARRIED TO JEWS.
NOW THESE CRIMINALS ARE NOT WHAT THEY APEAR TO BE THEY ARE NOT BIBLICAL HEBREWS THESE CRIMINAL PARASITS ARE A GENTILE TRIBE OF SAVAGES THAT CONVERTED TO JUDAISM WITH THE INTENTION OF DECEVING THE MUSLIMS AND THE CHRISTIANS WHICH ARE THE ONLY TWO RELIGIONS THAT BELIEVE IN A SUPERNATURAL CREATOR OF ALL VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE. WHILE THESE PARASITES ARE ATHESIST, AGNOSTICS GODLESS AND LAWLESS SCUM BAGS THAT DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO THEY ARE THEMSELVES AFTER SO MUCH DECEPTION THEY HAVE PRACTICE FOR MORE THAN 13 CENTURIES.
This is a great example hillary must NOT be elected president. Three possible appointments to the Supreme Court and twenty years from now America as we know it will only be a dream.
Let em try enforcing$#%&!@*like this- they’ll just end up being cleaned out-