On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Voisine v. the U.S. People who have domestic violence convictions can’t buy guns.
Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog wrote:
“This was the case of two Maine men who were convicted on state domestic violence charges and then found with firearms and charged with violating a federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from having firearms. The question was whether their convictions qualified under the statute.”
SCOTUS holds that domestic violence conviction is misdemeanor crime of violence for purposes of limiting access to firearms
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 27, 2016
Justice Clarence Thomas asked his first question in 10 years in February, when he asked the federal government’s attorney, Ilana Eisenstein:
“Ms. Eisenstein, one question. This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another example where a misdemeanor suspends a constitutional right?”
This led to a five-minute exchange between the two. Eisenstein cited studies that show that perpetrators of domestic violence are six times more likely to kill family members.
As always, internet trolls on Twitter have funny responses to Thomas’ new-found vocal abilities. The hashtag #Questions4Clarence popped up in February after the argument took place:
The death of Scalia having freed him from the Imperious Curse, Clarence Thomas asked a question to a lawyer today.
— fraudfeasor (@fraudfeasor) February 29, 2016
Clarence Thomas questioned logic of keeping guns from domestic abusers. We've got questions he should've asked. #Questions4Clarence
— Gun Responsibility (@WaGunResponsib) February 29, 2016
#Questions4Clarence
Why should domestic abusers have guns?
Do guns have more value than people's lives? https://t.co/vXuHrF90SC— GLNAWI (@glnawi) March 1, 2016
Were you channeling Scalia today when you spoke for the first time in 10 years?#SCOTUS
— Cornelia (@PaladinCornelia) March 1, 2016
Justice Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor were the two dissenting opinions in the ruling.
The document with the case read:
“Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another.”
The majority opinion, according to Reason, includes Justice Elena Kagan saying:
“…The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the ‘use…of physical force’ against a domestic relation. That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly—i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm.”
This makes some pretty good sense to me. Anyone who commits violence shouldn’t be allowed to buy a weapon. The Constitution doesn’t give you the right to hurt people with the “right” to bear arms.
Here is a news video from February when the argument was going on:
Featured image via YouTube screengrab.