Constitutional Law

Supreme Ct interprets Lautenberg Amendment

It's US v. Hayes. The question was whether to read the less than clear statute as requiring proof that the firearm possessor either (a) was convicted of a misdemeanor, whose elements were use of force, and against a household member, or (b) was convicted of a misdemeanor who element was use of force, with the government able to show in the firearm felony prosecution that it was in fact against a household member. (Defendant's underlying conviction was for generic battery, not specifically DV).

Majority, per Justice Ginsburg, goes for (b).

Roberts, joined by Scalia, dissents, going for (a). It's a straight statutory matter, Second Amendment neither briefed nor mentioned in either opinion.

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on February 24, 2009 (boomark / email).