In a majority 6-2 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that restricts gun ownership for a person convicted of reckless domestic assault.
“A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ under §922(g)(9),” said Justice Elena Kagan in the majority opinion in Voisine v. United States.
The Voisine case was about the ability to restrict gun ownership for someone previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of recklessness. Under federal law §922(g)(9), a person convicted of such a crime, as defined by a state, is also considered to fall under a category of conviction for domestic abuse under federal law.
Link: Read Full Opinion
“[Our] conclusion follows from the statutory text. Nothing in the phrase ‘use. . . of physical force” indicates that §922(g)(9) distinguishes between domestic assaults committed knowingly or intentionally and those committed recklessly,’” said Kagan.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“Under the majority’s approach, a parent who has a car accident because he sent a text message while driving can lose his right to bear arms forever if his wife or child suffers the slightest injury from the crash,” Thomas said. “This is obviously not the correct reading of §922(g)(9). The 'use of physical force' does not include crimes involving purely reckless conduct.”
Stephen Voisine was convicted in Maine of domestic assault under the state’s broad definition of the law for “intentional, knowing, or reckless” causing an assault. He was later found in possession of a rifle after his Maine conviction, and charged under statute §922(g)(9).
The Justices considered whether a “reckless” act is actually a use of force under the federal law, which probably caused some debate in private among the Justices about the definition of the words "use" and “reckless.” They didn’t consider direct Second Amendment issues - just the interpretation of the federal statute.
Voisine argued he wasn’t subject to §922(g)(9)’s prohibition because his prior conviction could have been based on reckless, rather than knowing or intentional, conduct and didn’t quality as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The lower courts in the case ruled against Voisine.
“Congress’s definition of a ‘misdemeanor crime of violence’ contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior. A person who assaults another recklessly ‘use[s]’ force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally. The relevant text thus supports prohibiting petitioners, and others with similar criminal records, from possessing firearms,” Kagan said.
“The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the ‘use . . . of physical force’ against a domestic relation,” Kagan added. “That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly—i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm.”
Justice Thomas argued that “to qualify as a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,’ the Maine assault statute must have as an element the ‘use of physical force.’ Because mere recklessness is sufficient to sustain a conviction under §207, a conviction does not necessarily involve the ‘use’ of physical force, and thus, does not trigger §922(g)(9)’s prohibition on firearm possession.”
