Today, the last day of the term, the SCOTUS announced its 6-2 decision in Voisine v United States which expanded a federal firearm prohibition to include crimes of domestic violence. The consolidated cases, from Maine in the 1st Circuit, tested the scope of the longstanding "felon in possession" laws that disqualify convicted felons from possessing firearms.

Domestic violence is a misdemeanor in Maine as it is here in Michigan and in the majority of states. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion, focusing on the definition of mens rea and the "use of force". The Court expressly adopted the Model Penal Code definitions of the criminal mental state, expanding that definition to include reckless conduct.

This case once again pits the ever-roving intersection between federal and state laws. Mr. Voisine's state law conviction of domestic violence was the predicate to the federal firearm charge; a charge based on a 1996 extension of the federal firearm prohibition.

In Voisine's case, while on probation for a domestic assault, the state learned he possessed a rifle. His ineligibility to do so led to federal charges. In a very well-written opinion, Justice Kagan illustrates examples of a reckless mens rea in the domestic relations context.

When a spouse throws a plate against a wall in anger near the other spouse, for example, the mens rea is reckless. And this is enough to render someone convicted of such a misdemeanor ineligible to possess a firearm.

An interesting dimension to the case is Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent raising a Second Amendment constitutional issue that was not briefed in the case. [Note: this was the case where Justice Thomas asked questions during oral argument for the first time in over a decade.] Justice Thomas asserted that the Second Amendment is treated "cavalierly" when this right -the right to bear arms- can be lost for a lifetime due to a "reckless misdemeanor conviction".

Post #546

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Last week saw Governor Snyder veto a state house bill involving an overhaul of the concealed pistol license procedures proposed by state senator Mike Green [R-Mayville].  The bill drew the Governor's veto because it would have loosened some prohibitions against obtaining a gun for some domestic abusers.

When the proposed legislation, designed to streamline the procedure for obtaining a concealed pistol license by putting the Michigan State Police in charge, went back to the lab, Senator Green promptly stripped the offensive language and put the bill back on track; it is now on fast-track consideration in the state senate.

In vetoing the initial version of the bill, the Governor stated his concern was not to take the chance of exposing victims of domestic violence to additional intimidation and more violence.  The current state of the law proscribes a CPL from being issued to anyone under the injunctive scope of a personal protection order.

Judges involved in a case featuring a PPO can also impose additional restrictions on an individual within that judge's jurisdiction.  Also, as Green has pointed out whenever he explains his bill, federal law likewise bans the issuance of a CPL to anyone that is the subject of a PPO.

If and when the bill passes in its latest iteration, it will abolish the current system of county gun boards, and will centralize the CPL administration through the Michigan State Police.  Some see this as a positive to the extent that guns can be concealed on an applicant's person a few weeks quicker than under the old system.  Others see the local gun boards as a useful local layer of supervision that may be better equipped to detect an inappropriate applicant that perhaps should not have a pistol concealed on his person.

All of this occurs within the context of rising gun deaths across the nation.  Guns are expected to overtake vehicles as the leading cause of death of young persons under the age of 25.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com