A Supreme Court ruling Monday in a case involving two Maine men reaffirmed that keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers is a viable way to prevent future violence. This is an important endorsement of a 20-year-old federal law aimed at reducing domestic violence.
The consolidated case before the Supreme Court involved 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.
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 argued 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.
The court, in a 6-2 ruling, decided that there was no necessary distinction between intentional and reckless violent acts. Justice Clarence Thomas, who broke 10 years of silence on the court to ask a question during oral arguments in this case, wrote the dissenting opinion. He was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“In sum, Congress’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court majority. “A person who assaults another recklessly ‘use[s]’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally. The relevant text thus supports prohibiting petitioners, and others with similar criminal records, from possessing firearms.”
This is an important decision for domestic violence prevention efforts.
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 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 occur are attributable to domestic violence.
The Supreme Court case centers on the Lautenberg Amendment, a federal law that prohibits people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing guns. Previously, federal law barred only 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 downgraded their convictions to misdemeanors.
When a gun is present, domestic violence victims are at greater risk of emotional and physical harm and death. The court’s upholding of the Lautenberg Amendment prevents a dangerous rollback of protections for domestic violence victims.
