Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NutmegYankee

(16,487 posts)

5. It was a highly technical court case.

Reply to Jitter65 (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:39 PM

Jun 2016

No one was challenging that domestic abusers can be denied gun ownership as a penalty for the crime. What was challenged was that Domestic violence under federal law appeared to require an intentional domestic violence act, whereas in Maine reckless or negligent behavior that resulted in a domestic injury also is considered domestic violence.

Sotomayor agreed that the domestic violence had to be an intentional act, and not an act of negligence or reckless behavior.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can someone explain Justice Sotomayor's dissent on the SCOTUS gun ruling? [View all] Jitter65 Jun 2016 OP

This WaPo piece might help IronLionZion Jun 2016 #1

The issues where she agreed, from a quick reading: elleng Jun 2016 #2

She and Thomas think the law is too braod. mr_liberal Jun 2016 #3

Thanks. nt Jitter65 Jun 2016 #4

It was a highly technical court case. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #5

Actually Not True-There Was an Amicus Brief Filed by Several Guns Rights Non-Profits Stallion Jun 2016 #7

No actual party in the case was arguing that. So yes, it's true. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #8

This Statement Was Incorrect Stallion Jun 2016 #9

No one in the actual case at hand. So no it isn't incorrect. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #10

Read this djg21 Jun 2016 #6