A Supreme Court case received a lot of attention last week because it prompted Justice Clarence Thomas to ask his first questions during the court’s oral arguments in 10 years. The case should be getting attention instead because the wrong ruling could reverse a life-saving law.
The case centers on the Lautenberg Amendment, a federal law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing guns. Previously, federal law barred those convicted of felony domestic violence crimes from having firearms. The law was changed because Congress recognized that “anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms,” as the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, said on the Senate floor on Sept. 30, 1996.
In addition, lawmakers were concerned that some abusers were allowed to keep their weapons because, although they were charged with felonies, they negotiated plea deals that reduced the charges to misdemeanors.
Research has documented that access to a gun heightens domestic violence risks for women. Women who are victims of domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed by their partner if there is a gun in the home. A survey of battered women found that nearly two-thirds of the women who lived in a home where a gun was present reported that the gun had been used to threaten or harm them. In the United States, three women are killed each day in domestic violence incidents. Maine thankfully has few homicides compared with other states. However, half of those that do occur are attributable to domestic violence.
The consolidated case before the Supreme Court involves two Maine men. One, Stephen Voisine of Wytopitlock, was sentenced to jail for shooting a bald eagle in 2009. He was barred from owning a gun at that time because of a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. He also had more than a dozen other convictions, U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock noted at his 2012 sentencing in the eagle case.
William Armstrong III of New Vineyard was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence after assaulting his wife in 2002, according to court records. In May 2010, Maine police officers found six firearms and ammunition while searching his home. He eventually entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of illegally possessing firearms while reserving his right to appeal.
Lawyers for the men argue that the gun prohibition violates numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment, and that misdemeanor domestic violence charges that result in a gun prohibition should require intentional, not just reckless, acts of violence.
Justice Thomas appears to side with the Maine men. “Can you think of another constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a state law?” Thomas asked the government’s attorney during the Feb. 29 oral arguments in the case. It was the first time since February 2006 that he had asked a question during oral arguments, prompting speculation that he was speaking up in the absence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month.
When a gun is present, domestic violence victims are at greater risk of emotional and physical harm and death. If Voisine and Armstrong succeed at the Supreme Court, a ruling in their favor would roll back protections for domestic violence victims, likely leading to tragic consequences.
