Skip to main content

With this Supreme Court majority, one doesn't expect much, but this unanimous ruling looks huge:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal law intended to keep guns away from domestic violence offenders can apply even if their crime was nothing more than "offensive touching."

The decision was a victory for gun control advocates and groups that work to protect battered spouses and children, and a defeat for gun rights organizations who argued the federal law goes too far.

For the justices, it came down to the proper definition of "physical force" -- one that a majority of them decided did not have to be violent, or even directly applied to the victim by the abuser. Routine battery convictions, the court said, are sufficient to trigger the gun ban.

The ruling overturned a judgment by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a case where a Tennessee man was charged with gun offenses seven years after having pleaded guilty to having injured the mother of his child. His appeal contended that the gun charges should be dismissed, because his original offense did not involve physical force. The ruling can be found here (pdf).

Please read below the fold for more on this story.

Justice Antonin Scalia concurred with the majority, but wrote a separate opinion, objecting to the extent of the ban.

For example, amici’s definitions describe as “domestic violence” acts that “humiliate, isolate, frighten, . . . [and] blame . . . someone”; “acts of omission”; “excessive monitoring of a woman’s behavior, repeated accusations of infidelity, and controlling with whom she has contact.”
Writing for the majority was Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
JUSTICE SCALIA’s concurrence discounts our reference to social-science definitions of “domestic violence,” including those used by the organizations most directly engaged with the problem and thus most aware of its dimensions. See post, at 8–11. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the operative phrase we are construing is not “domestic violence”; it is “physical force.” §921(a)(33)(A). “Physical force” has a presumptive common-law meaning, and the question is simply whether that presumptive meaning makes sense in defining a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” 6

A third reason for distinguishing Johnson’s definition of “physical force” is that unlike in Johnson—where a determination that the defendant’s crime was a “violent felony” would have classified him as an “armed career criminal”—the statute here groups those convicted of “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” with others whose conduct does not warrant such a designation. Section 922(g) bars gun possession by anyone “addicted to any controlled substance,” §922(g)(3); by most people who have “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa,” §922(g)(5)(B); by anyone who has renounced United States citizenship, §922(g)(7); and by anyone subject to a domestic restraining order, §922(g)(8). Whereas we have hesitated (as in Johnson) to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act to “crimes which, though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels ‘armed career criminals,’ ” Begay v. United States, 553 U. S. 137, 146 (2008), we see no anomaly in grouping domestic abusers convicted of generic assault or battery offenses together with the others whom §922(g) disqualifies from gun ownership.

An additional reason to read the statute as we do is that a contrary reading would have rendered §922(g)(9) inoperative in many States at the time of its enactment. The “assault or battery laws” under which “domestic abusers were . . . routinely prosecuted” when Congress enacted §922(g)(9), and under which many are still prosecuted today, Hayes, 555 U. S., at 427, fall generally into two categories: those that prohibit both offensive touching and the causation of bodily injury, and those that prohibit only the latter. See Brief for United States 36–38. Whether or not the causation of bodily injury necessarily entails violent force—a question we do not reach—mere offensive touching does not. See Johnson, 559 U. S., at 139–140. So if offensive touching did not constitute “force” under §921(a)(33)(A), then §922(g)(9) would have been ineffectual in at least 10 States—home to nearly thirty percent ofthe Nation’s population7—at the time of its enactment.

See post, at 6, and n. 5 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (acknowledging that §922(g)(9) would have been inapplicable in California and nine other States if it did not encompass offensive touching); App. to Brief for United States 10a–16a (listing statutes prohibiting both offensive touching and the causation of bodily injury, only some of which are divisible); cf. Hayes, 555 U. S., at 427 (rejecting an interpretation under which“§922(g)(9) would have been ‘a dead letter’ in some twothirds of the States from the very moment of its enactment”).

In sum, Johnson requires that we attribute the common-law meaning of “force” to §921(a)(33)(A)’s definition of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as an offense that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force.” We therefore hold that the requirement of “physical force” is satisfied, for purposes of §922(g)(9), by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction.

6 The concurrence’s reliance on definitions of “domestic violence” in other statutory provisions, see post, at 8, and n. 7, is similarly unpersuasive. These other provisions show that when Congress wished to define “domestic violence” as a type of “violence” simpliciter, it knew how to do so. That it did not do so here suggests, if anything, that it did not mean to. See, e.g., Custis v. United States, 511 U. S. 485, 492 (1994). This also answers the concurrence’s suggestion, post, at 10, that our holding will somehow make it difficult for Congress to define “domestic violence”—where it wants to—as requiring violent force.

7 See U. S. Census Bureau, Time Series of Intercensal State Population Estimates: April 1, 1990 to April 1, 2000, online at (estimating state and national populations as of July 1, 1996).

The bottom line is that those who have suffered domestic abuse now can be better protected from their abusers, those convicted of domestic abuse can be legally barred from owning firearms, and the overall cause of gun safety has won a rare but substantive victory.

Originally posted to Laurence Lewis on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:31 PM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Firearms Law and Policy, Shut Down the NRA, and Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Meteor Blades, JekyllnHyde, Bill in Portland Maine, fcvaguy, hannah, Radiowalla, artr2, Powered Grace, Bob Love, Emerson, cotterperson, LuvSet, eeff, grover, dpeifer1949, Creosote, Doctor Who, agoldnyc, missLotus, Babsnc, lorell, whenwego, djMikulec, jalbert, oceanview, splashy, navajo, sidnora, wader, Lilyvt, Texknight, texasmom, Chirons apprentice, Major Kong, WisVoter, rmx2630, Sybil Liberty, Gowrie Gal, radarlady, jhancock, chimene, elkhunter, skeptigal, Navy Vet Terp, where4art, cspivey, skyounkin, peteri2, blue jersey mom, kaliope, PinHole, peacestpete, noweasels, We Shall Overcome, MadGeorgiaDem, Nance, cybersaur, edwardssl, emeraldmaiden, HoundDog, mr crabby, Prognosticator, arlene, gpoutney, Zwoof, Turbonerd, onionjim, SingerInTheChoir, CA Nana, Friend of the court, Little, NonnyO, BentLiberal, BeninSC, devis1, Dartagnan, gchaucer2, dizzydean, VA Breeze, mconvente, wayoutinthestix, bythesea, Sharon Wraight, mikeconwell, Calamity Jean, Lujane, Cassandra Waites, catly, mofembot, No Exit, HarpboyAK, JamieG from Md, rhutcheson, watercarrier4diogenes, statsone, prettygirlxoxoxo, enemy of the people, don mikulecky, TheFern, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, WakeUpNeo, earicicle, MKSinSA, Denise Oliver Velez, moviemeister76, Tortmaster, LookingUp, Larsstephens, Lefty Ladig, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, FogCityJohn, serendipityisabitch, Polly Syllabic, samanthab, pixxer, DiegoUK, 4kedtongue, nirbama, Betty Pinson, Oh Mary Oh, ZedMont, slice, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, annieli, bootsykronos, FarWestGirl, badscience, thomask, dle2GA, Ojibwa, BarackStarObama, SoCalSal, leftykook, allergywoman, No one gets out alive, Mathazar, YaNevaNo, AnnetteK, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, i saw an old tree today, OldDragon, sow hat, charliehall2, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, winglion, a2nite, FloridaSNMOM, CA ridebalanced, This old man, mapamp, jan4insight, carolanne, belinda ridgewood, radical simplicity, MartyM, rat racer, Glen The Plumber, jusjtim35, Joy of Fishes, Smoh, peterfallow, LilithGardener, CenPhx, Algernons Labyrinth, Penny GC, Medde, hbk, Caittus, Arkenstark, AJayne, Cadillac64, kfunk937, liberalguy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site