Should Domestic Violence Abusers Own Guns?
Of course not. Hopefully, the Supreme Court agrees.By Katie Gaughan
December 4, 2008
(istockphoto.com)Randy Hayes of West Virginia pleaded guilty in 1994 to abusing his then-wife, with whom he had a child. He was convicted of misdemeanor battery and sentenced to one year of probation. Ten years later, police responded to another domestic violence call from his now ex-wife. Police arrived at Hayes’ home, where they found a rifle under his bed.
Hayes was subsequently indicted for violating something known as the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, which prohibits abusers convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing firearms. In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in Richmond, Virginia, agreed with Hayes and dismissed the case. The government asked the Supreme Court for review and the Court agreed to hear the case in March. Last month the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case and a decision is expected next June.
In United States v. Hayes the Court will interpret the Lautenberg Amendment, a law passed following the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, a ban on convicted felons possessing firearms. The Court will either decide that the Lautenberg Amendment applies to batterers across the country, creating a total gun ban for domestic violence abusers, or it will decide that the amendment applies only in those states with specific domestic violence laws, allowing thousands of convicted batterers to own guns.
Depending on which way the ruling goes, it could result in thousands of convicted domestic violence abusers being given new access to guns. There are two main issues in this case: First, at the moment domestic violence isn’t considered a felony in all 50 states; second, gun ownership and sales are difficult to regulate, despite what the National Rifle Association might lead you to believe.
The law was rarely applied to domestic violence cases because most of those cases were treated as misdemeanors rather than felonies. So the Lautenberg Amendment, named after Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, was meant to close that loophole. However, at the time the amendment passed, only 17 states had specific laws criminalizing “domestic violence” misdemeanors. As a result, the law didn’t apply to most states.
“The real danger is that they’ll decide to relax the ban on guns,” said Michael Runner, Director of Legal Programs of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. “It’s going to be a disaster.” Legal Momentum, formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, estimates that between 1,000 and 1,600 women die every year at the hands of their male partners; and domestic violence abusers are 12 times more likely to kill their victims if they have a gun.
“It would be extremely dangerous for families and police officers,” said Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the group that filed a brief with the Supreme Court. On average, more than three people are killed by intimate partners every day in this country. Intimate partner homicides account for up to one-half of all homicides of females, and 14 percent of all police officer deaths occur during a response to domestic violence calls, according to the Brady Center.
Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said there are some people who think of it as a gun rights issue, even though “most reasonable Americans would agree that a man who beats a woman doesn’t have the right to own a firearm,” he said.
Justice Scalia may not side with the “reasonable Americans” that Everitt talks about. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Supreme Court gave a “skeptical” hearing to the Hayes case. During a key point during the hearing, Scalia noted (PDF) his apparent indifference to victims of domestic violence in an exchange with the government’s lawyer, Nicole Saharsky:
Scalia: And this was misdemeanor assault and battery, wasn’t it? Saharsky: Yes, that’s right. I mean, I really—
Scalia: So it’s not that serious an offense. That’s why we call it a misdemeanor. Saharsky: Well, I mean, certainly the offense is this particular case was serious. The charging document reflects that Respondent hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked here in the ribs—
Scalia: Then he should have been charged with a felony, but he wasn’t. He was charged with a misdemeanor.
Everitt said the fact that Hayes was convicted of a misdemeanor and not a felony points to problems with the justice system, such as intimidation of women who report domestic violence. One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime, and most cases of domestic violence are never reported to the police, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “This is a very, very serious issue. We’re talking about people’s lives. People could be injured or killed. This guy beat his wife pretty damn good,” Everitt said.
Runner described two other cases involving domestic violence that the Supreme Court was unsympathetic to: the Gonzalez case in Castle Rock, Colorado and the Giles case in California. Runner said that in these two cases, the Court ruled against the interests of domestic violence victims. “It’s a dangerous trend among the Supreme Court,” he said.
Even if the Court decides the gun ban applies to all 50 states, there are still loopholes in other state and federal laws that allow batterers to buy guns. The Family Violence Prevention Fund estimates that more than 2,800 people with misdemeanor convictions were able to purchase guns between 1998 and 2001 without being identified by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Gun dealers with federal firearm licenses (FFLs) are required to perform background checks. But private sales by unlicensed dealers are largely unregulated. A gun owner without a federal firearm license can legally sell guns from his “private collection” up to six times per year, and there is no limit to how many guns may be sold during each of these transactions. These private sales go on at gun shows, flea markets, and private homes. The only thing stopping a domestic violence offender from purchasing a gun from a private collection is his knowledge that he may be caught carrying the weapon.
In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), the federal agency responsible for regulating gun sales, lacks the resources to provide adequate oversight of licensed gun dealers, some of whom are corrupt, according to the Family Violence Prevention Fund. Some licensed dealers knowingly allow “straw purchases” in which a person who is legally banned from buying a gun has someone else buy it on his behalf. It is nearly impossible for the BATF to track these purchases.
Currently, an estimated 34.5 percent of households have a gun, and 24 percent have a handgun. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home, according to the Brady Center. And, the proportion of male to female homicides is increasing, Runner said.
Although regular folks don’t have the power to influence the Supreme Court, there are still things you can do locally to make your voice heard. There are many states that don’t have specific laws against domestic abuse, and people in those states can urge their representatives to draft laws against domestic abuse, Vice said. “If the ruling goes the wrong way, the legislative process is critical. Activists will have to lobby to make domestic violence a felony in all 50 states if they wish to see a ban on domestic violence perpetrators possessing guns. Everyone can call, email, or request a face to face with their representatives,” Everitt said.
Katie Gaughan is a freelance writer living in Portland, OR. She graduated from the University of Minnesota in 2007.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
As long as a felony wasn’t committed; it’s ridiculous that such a violation should deprive one of their constitutional rights ! Many of these charges are bogus and are filed during moments of passion. After the fact it is discovered that most people so accused are, in fact, innocent of any crime at all. This is just one additional excuse to limit gun ownership by chipping away at anyone possible !
— gjdagis - Dec 4, 05:30 PM - #A truly one sided discussion except for the comment from Scalia. I would have to agree that these people should have simply been charged with felonies to begin with and eliminated the need for law outside of the scope of the original law.
What is unreasonable about that?
— Molan Labe - Dec 4, 06:04 PM - #Wife beater…
That’s what the author of this story implies that every single person with a domestic violence conviction is. This is wrong.
When the law was past, many law enforcement officers lost their jobs because they could no longer carry a firearm. This was due to previous misdemeanor convictions, often decades old, for minor offenses such as throwing an object across the room during an argument (legally considered menacing) or getting into a scuffle with a sibling as a teenager. Their offenses were minor, and that’s why they were misdemeanors and not felonies.
The Fraternal Order of Police even sued the government in an effort to overturn the Lautenberg law (Google it if you don’t believe me).
Misdemeanors are misdemeanors for a reason. Yes, many abusers plea bargain down offenses that should be felonies, but it would be wrong to take away the right to vote from people with misdemeanors just to encompass those that perhaps should have received a felony conviction. When you throw a wide net, you often catch more than you should.
Misdemeanors are misdemeanors are misdemeanors!!!
— John - Dec 5, 02:24 AM - #It’s a misdemeanor but you’re treated like a felon therefore you can never own a firearm-sounds like bullsh1t to me;and as it was already stated above most of these charges and/or arrests wound up being lied about in the first place;the author who wrote this article just copy and pasted from a previous article published last month and threw her leftist opinion in for her own spin-typical liberalism
— Dan - Dec 6, 08:30 PM - #To the previous commentors –
The way to address a one-sided argument is not to present an equally one-sided argument of your own.
The task is to distinguish domestic abuse that warrants a felony charge from that deserving a misdemeanor. And given the psychological dynamics of coercion and intimidation present in cases of abusive husbands, this is not an easy task.
— Matt - Dec 13, 12:09 PM - #I think the law is BS. My husband and I had a issue were I threw something at him, he threw it back at me, well, it knocked a window out, he did not hit me, we went to court, the judge ordered counseling, this was in 1994, the outcome of the case when we went back since he postponed it so the counseling could take place was “no further action”. Ok….this is 2008, just recently we found out through trying to purchase a handgun that he can no longer own a gun, this takes away his rights, he pays taxes, has been called for Jury duty, votes, he’s not a felon, since they stripped his right from him, can he stop paying taxes to these dumbasses that inact these laws?? No….will he be able to take our son hunting? to a turkey shoot, NO….it also violates my rights because now, I can not have a gun in my own home. We have had no further incidences with anything, but yet he’s stripped of his rights and treated like a felon that murdered someone. He never laid a hand on me, a drunken neighbor heard the glass break and called the police.
— confuzed one in va - Dec 13, 10:26 PM - #I am glad to hear the level headed responses coming form this forum. I am in complete agreement with many of them. I too am banned from owning a handgun for life thanks to the Lautenberg Act. Prior to my Misdemeanor Domestic Violence charge in 1999 I had not owned a gun, did not have any intentions on using a gun against my then girlfriend whom admitted later to friends of mine that the disagreements did not happen the way she told police.
— Timothy - Dec 16, 08:13 PM - #No other misdemeanor charge that I am aware of restricts someone from lifetime gun ownership. Even a bar room brawl won’t cost you your gun rights. You can even hit someone of the opposite sex that you have not had a relationship with in the past and it won’t be considered domestic violence(thus not costing you your 2nd amendment right to bare arms).
I would like to someday take my son hunting.
Timothy
I was charged with domestic violence nearly two years ago, I am guilty for what I done regardless of the circumstances, I have been going to counseling on my own since then, I think with this issue is very much one sided and everything not looked it in depth, its you did it and your wrong it dosnt matter what the other person put you through emotionally at the time cheating etc, now Im not saying im right, but a misdemenor should be that a misdemenor crime only! heck I cant even fight for my country with a misdemenor, I tried! also I have never owned a handgun and have no desire to, but I would like to know with this crime,I could still have any job I wanted, or worked for I know im still a good person dispite making a bad choice and im tried of feeling like I committed a felony FOR A MISDEMENOR CRIME
— Thomas Stanley - Jan 3, 12:07 AM - #9. I agree with these people, my husband was charged with domestic violence when he hadn’t done anything and I told the judge that too but they wouldn’t allow him near our house, my husband had to move out until court could happen which they said would be at least 6 months unless he took a plea bargain so he took a plea bargain for no contest never had it explained to us that he would lose his gun rights, we didn’t find that out until about 3 years later when he tried to buy a gun. I think it is ridiculous and unfair he cannot hunt anymore and that is what he loves to do!! He wasn’t even found guilt but they said that the no contest plea makes you guilty and it was only a misdemeanor. That law should only be in place for felons!!!!!
— Charity - Jan 12, 06:53 PM - #10. it is bogus! About 6 years ago my wife and i took my daughter home to her mothers house, we had just got out of church and was about an hour late getting her home. the ex threw a big fit and started cussing and threatening my wife. I stepped toward her asking to please not be that way, in a split second out of the blue she slapped me so hard my head torqued, with out thought i reflexed and hit her in the nose. the ex got in no trouble but check this out. i got charged misdemeanor domestic violence, 180 days in jail, $400 fine, pay her $900 E.R. visit, 100 hrs community service, anger management class, and had to write her a letter of appolagy. then 2 years later im informed that i couldnt own a gun for life. That was the only charge i have ever had besides traffic violations. i grew up hunting, on my own without a gardian at 10 years old, that is becouse i was raised around guns and knew how to respect them. i now have three sons that beg to go hunting. i have three sons a daughter and wife, but cant protect my own household from true crimenals. where is the true justice and rights that our forefathers gave to us. this must end someday. I want nothing more than to spend time hunting with my children. is there a loop hole? can this be ex-spunged? if any one can help please e-mail me malcolmdwright@hotmail.com
— malcolm wright - Apr 4, 08:26 AM - #I am currently trying to generate steam on a moratorium to the lifetime prohibition. I also want to set up a session with a lawyer to discuss a class action lawsuit. I was never informed my 2000 conviction would result in the lifetime termination of my right to own a firearm. The judge told me up to 90 days, up to 1000 in fines, probation and anger sessions…nothing about this Federal punishment. If I would have known, I would have hired a court appointed lawyer and ran a jury trial. They snuck it right by me. If they want to futz around on this, why don’t they simply let me quit paying taxes? You won’t let me enjoy a liberty…I won’t finance yours! Any citizens out there suffering from this, contact at
— John - Jul 8, 09:17 PM - #acitizensproposal.bl… lets fix this!
Railroaded by court and lawyer for slapping my daughter for freaking out on me cursing and punching me. found guilty of family violence and never to own a hand gun or firearm again. She was 17 at time and even told the judge that she attacked me and no child should ever attack their parent. What should we do as parents. I“ll go even further. You are entered into a database just as a sex offender is. There is a hell of a difference. I dont believe in slapping anyone but when you are being attacked. What do you do. when people hear offender thats all they hear. They cant differentiate between sex offender. In which I am not or family violence offender. We are being programed. You cant even punish your children anymore. If I would have even spoken to my mother the wrong way. I would have got my but kicked. What are they telling my child. Its ok to go into the world and do whatever you want. If she had hit someone else They might have done much worse. I believe you teach your child at home to respect you and others. If they dont respect you how can they respect themselves or anyone else. I am proud of my daughter who told the judge. I love my father. He has never abused me. I should have respected him. I respect and love my father who finished raising me after my mother left us. He had a lot on his plate. Not to mention the statement given by police even she said was wrong. Yours truly railroaded
— james king - Aug 30, 07:04 PM - #