Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supreme Court
In 2009, an anonymous tipster contacted authorities with a hunch:A bald eagle had been shot and
killed, and they knew who did it.
A Maine man, Stephen Voisine, was arrested for the crime. He turned over his rifle to police. As it
turned out, he was not legally allowed to own guns. Six years earlier, hed been convicted of a
domestic violence misdemeanor against his girlfriend after she called police and said hed slapped
her -- and not for the first time. Two years later, he was convicted of assaulting her again.
Under a federal law called the Lautenberg Amendment, if youve been convicted of a domestic
violence misdemeanor, you cant own or buy a gun. If youre caught with one, as Voisine was, you can
face up to 10 years behind bars. In 2011, Voisine was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm
by a prohibited person.
On Monday, he and another Maine man with a similar story are taking their case to the Supreme
Court. Lawyers for the two men are arguing that their convictions for violating the amendment
should be reversed -- because they never should have lost their gun rights to begin with.
Both men were convicted of domestic violence under Maine statutes that include "reckless" conduct.
Their lawyers argue that the men acted in the heat of the moment and their impulsive, reckless acts
of domestic violence are not serious enough to qualify under the federal gun ban.
In essence, as The Trace explains, they're arguing for a hierarchy of domestic violence offenses. In
their estimation, not all domestic violence convictions should result in a gun ban. Instead, they say,
only intentional, purposeful acts of violence should trigger the loss of gun rights under federal law.
The question put to the court boils down to this: Does it matter what mental state you are in when
you commit domestic violence? Under the law, if you commit such a crime recklessly, as opposed to
knowingly or intentionally, should you still forfeit your right to buy or possess guns?
Why should I care about this case?
If the court sides with the two men, it's possible that only some types of domestic violence
convictions would result in abusers losing their gun rights.
That would be a dangerous scenario, according to the many anti-violence organizations that filed
friend-of-the-court briefs. Research shows that if an abuser has access to a gun, victims are five
times more likely to be killed.A recent Associated Press analysis found that an average of 760
Americans were killed with guns annually by intimate partners, though that is likely an undercount.
More than 80 percent of the victims were women.
It also appears to go against the spirit of the Lautenberg Amendment, which was enacted to make
sure that all domestic abusers -- whether convicted of felonies or misdemeanors -- can't own guns.
Oh, right,the Lautenberg Amendment. Why is it important again?
In 1996, Congress passed the amendment to the Gun Control Act, which barred individuals