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, he’d been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor against his girlfriend after she called police and said he’d 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 you’ve been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, you can’t own or buy a gun. If you’re 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.
It’s easy to look at this and think, “Domestic abusers owning guns? What could POSSIBLY go awry?”…amiright?? There’s just so much so very wrong with this scenario that it’s difficult to know where to begin.
The first problem that leaps to mind is the belief that owning a gun is a right that should be available to virtually everyone, not a privilege granted to those who’ve demonstrated they can play well with others. Both of these men don’t appear able to play well with women, hence their arrest under the Lautenberg Amendment. If that goes by the boards, it’s just one more thing that proves we value guns far more than the lives of vulnerable people- like women in abusive relationships, f’rinstance.
The second problem is with the argument used to support Guns über Alles ©, which appears to be advocating for a hierarchy of domestic violence crimes. This argument holds that not all domestic violence is created equal, and that only those who’ve engaged in purposeful and intentional acts against a romantic partner should lose their gun rights. The plaintiffs claim their particular crimes were committed in the heat of the moment, making them neither purposeful not intentional. Therefore, by that measuring stick they shouldn’t lose their right to own and bear arms.
To call this argument dangerous doesn’t begin to do justice to the risk it forces some women to assume. Research has shown that if an abuser has access to a gun, a woman is five times more likely to be killed. Regardless of whether the act was purposeful and intentional, the end result can be the same- often a woman dead at the hands of her abuser.
To say that the result of this decision will be measured in women’s lives lost would be an understatement of epic proportions. To hold that it will provide a measure of the level of humanity extant in the Supreme Court would be spot on.
Lawyers for the men are arguing that the gun ban should only apply to people who intend to hurt their partners, not those who merely act recklessly or impulsively.
But as the government lawyers point out, most states’ simple assault and battery laws —- which are typically used to address domestic violence — lump crimes committed recklessly or intentionally together.
For example, under Maine law, a person is guilty of assault if he or she “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person.” Many states use similar language.
It’s important to note that reckless acts don’t mean accidental. Under Maine law, a person acts recklessly when he or she “consciously disregards a risk that the person’s conduct will cause such a result.”
The abusers are arguing that their acts of domestic violence weren’t intended to hurt their partner, that they were committed in the heat of the moment. Therefore, the violence didn’t rise to the level of being purposeful or intentional, so it wasn’t “real” domestic violence. I suspect the victims would have a somewhat different take on these events…but since when are the rights and well-being of domestic violence victims ever a consideration?
While their lawyers will attempt to split legal hairs, the end result of the actions of these abusers was violence committed against women. That’s a textbook definition of domestic violence, one that shouldn’t be colored in shades of grey. If you commit an act of domestic violence, you’re an abuser and shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. Period. End of story.
If you can’t play well with the women in your life, if you can’t control your anger and are prone to acting out violently against someone at a physical disadvantage, there’s no credible, moral argument to be made for allowing you to own or have access to guns. Bullies who abuse women shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. Period.
Or do you really hold the lives and physical safety of women to be of lesser value than an abuser’s right to own a gun?
More women in this country die at the hands of their intimate partners — their boyfriends, husbands and exes — than any other type of perpetrator. Most of those homicides are committed with guns.
In a recent project, The Huffington Post tracked all the people killed in suspected intimate parter homicides over the January. We found that 112 people were killed, including children and bystanders. Firearms were responsible for 57 percent of those deaths.
In addition, most U.S. mass shootings are related to domestic violence.
Laws that make it harder for domestic abusers to get guns are shown to save lives. One study, for example, found that state laws restricting firearm access for people subject to protective orders was associated with a 25 percent lower rate of gun-related intimate partner homicides.
As Everytown for Gun Safety summed up in a friend-of-the-court brief for the case, “the stakes of this decision will be measured in lives.”
So what’s it going to be? Will the Supreme Court cement into law the belief that gun right prevail over all other rights? DO women have the right to live free from being violently abused (or worse) by their partners? Must women simply accept that their safety and well-being are held to be of lesser value than the gun rights of their abusers?
This decision will absolutely be measured in lives- the lives of women who will die if the Supreme Court rules that the gun rights of abusers supersede a woman’s right to live. If the Supreme Court declines to protect those who are vulnerable, what claim to humanity can the rule of law continue to claim?
