https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/for-first-time-in-10-years-justice-thomas-asksquestions-during-argument/2016/02/29/b47f2558-df00-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b
Monday’s case involved a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun. The specific question was whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction based on “recklessness” was enough to trigger the ban on gun ownership.
...
“Ms. Eisenstein, just one question,” Thomas said. “Can you give me — this is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”
This is one aspect of the case. And however the court decides, if they allow this to stand I hope they are very careful to ensure that they are not establishing a precedent that allows people to lose other constitutional rights for charges this minor, with this little legal protection against miscarriages of justice.
When a felon loses his/her right to vote or bear arms, that's one thing. But do you want individuals to lose these rights for petty infractions? The argument in this case is that the conduct was reckless, not intentional, so that's why there's all the common law stuff earlier.
The case is Voisine V United States.
The link to the oral argument transcript is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-10154_5i36.pdf
Notice that Justice Breyer gets interested after Thomas' line of questioning (as does Kennedy). Breyer picks it up with:
JUSTICE BREYER: Do it what is it we
have they raised this in their brief. They say,
let's focus on the cases in which there is a misdemeanor
battery conducted without an intentional or knowing
state of mind.
Now, they say if this, in fact, triggers
this is the question Justice Thomas asked if this, in
fact, triggers a lifetime ban on the use of a gun, then
do we not have to decide something we haven't decided?
And I think it would be a major question.
What constitutes a reasonable regulation of
guns under the Second Amendment given Heller and the
other cases with which I disagreed? But
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE BREYER: the point is, she's
raised a question, and she wants us to answer that
question. Is this a reasonable regulation given you
just heard the argument, in part given the distance
and so forth? So what am I supposed to say, in your
opinion, in respect to that rather important question?
Breyer eventually ends up saying we don't have to decide the constitutional question in this case, so let's avoid it. We can just make it a textual interpretation.
= new reply since forum marked as read
