Domestic Violence And Firearm Restrictions
Overview
Domestic violence and firearm restrictions are a critical part of U.S. federal law aimed at preventing violence and protecting victims of domestic abuse. The rationale is that firearms increase the lethality of domestic violence incidents, and restricting access to guns by offenders reduces risks of injury or death.
Key Federal Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8): Prohibits possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (Lautenberg Amendment): Prohibits firearm possession by anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
These restrictions apply to individuals who have been convicted of certain domestic violence offenses or are restrained by court orders related to domestic abuse.
Legal Elements for Firearm Restrictions
To enforce firearm restrictions under these laws, prosecutors must generally prove:
The defendant possessed a firearm.
The defendant had a qualifying conviction or restraining order.
The conviction or order involves a domestic relationship (spouse, cohabitant, parent of a child, or dating partner).
The conviction was for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (or equivalent under state law).
Key Case Laws Explaining Domestic Violence and Firearm Restrictions
Case 1: United States v. Castleman (2014)
Facts: Castleman was convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense for grabbing and throwing his wife’s phone, which the prosecution argued qualified as "force" under § 922(g)(9).
Issue: Whether the offense involved sufficient “force” to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law.
Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the force required under the statute is the use of any degree of force, including offensive touching, not just violent force.
Significance: Broadened the definition of domestic violence offenses that trigger firearm prohibitions, allowing prosecution for possession of firearms even after minor acts of physical force.
Case 2: Voisine v. United States (2016)
Facts: Voisine was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence based on reckless acts of violence against his partner.
Issue: Whether reckless conduct qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for firearm restrictions.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that reckless acts causing harm or offensive contact qualify under the Lautenberg Amendment.
Significance: Expanded the scope of firearm prohibitions to include reckless (not just intentional) domestic violence conduct.
Case 3: United States v. Hayes (2009)
Facts: Hayes possessed firearms after being convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense that was not specifically labeled as a domestic violence crime.
Issue: Whether the domestic relationship must be an element of the prior conviction to trigger firearm restrictions.
Ruling: The Court held that the government must prove the prior conviction involved a domestic relationship, even if the conviction was not explicitly domestic violence.
Significance: Clarified that the domestic nature of the offense is necessary to trigger federal firearm bans.
Case 4: United States v. Jardee (2015)
Facts: Jardee was convicted for possessing firearms after a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
Issue: The legitimacy of the firearm prohibition based on the domestic violence conviction.
Ruling: The Ninth Circuit affirmed Jardee’s conviction, emphasizing the protective purpose of firearm restrictions for domestic violence offenders.
Significance: Reinforced federal enforcement of firearm bans related to domestic violence convictions.
Case 5: United States v. Meade (2013)
Facts: Meade was convicted of possessing firearms after a protective order was issued against him for domestic violence.
Issue: Whether the protective order met the criteria under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to restrict firearm possession.
Ruling: The court found the order valid and upheld the firearm possession prohibition.
Significance: Demonstrated that qualifying protective orders can trigger firearm possession bans, emphasizing enforcement beyond just convictions.
Case 6: United States v. Simmons (2017)
Facts: Simmons was prosecuted under § 922(g)(9) after possessing firearms following a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
Issue: Whether the prior conviction was properly classified and whether the defendant knew he was prohibited.
Ruling: The court affirmed the conviction, underscoring the seriousness of firearm possession bans for domestic violence offenders.
Significance: Affirmed that ignorance of firearm prohibitions is not a defense and reinforced strict application.
Summary
Federal laws prohibit firearm possession by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or subject to protective orders.
Courts interpret “domestic violence” broadly, including minor physical force or reckless acts.
Both convictions and qualifying restraining orders can trigger firearm restrictions.
Violations lead to serious federal charges, emphasizing the importance of protecting domestic violence victims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments