Brief filed in MCDV gun case
February 9, 2016
Voisine v. United States
(Read brief here)
Every once in a while, a case comes before the U.S. Supreme Court involving an issue so politically controversial that almost no organizations have the
courage to defend the constitutional rights at stake. Such a case is Voisine v. United States, where only one amicus brief was filed in support of a gun
owner living in Maine.
Mr. Voisine was charged with a federal felony: illegal possession of a firearm. The Obama Administration's theory why Mr. Voisine had no right to own a
gun was simply this: years before, Mr. Voisine had been convicted of a petty misdemeanor under the law of Maine, and that misdemeanor qualified under
federal law as a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence ("MCDV"). The federal MCDV provision is also known as the Lautenberg Amendment - authored by one
of the most rabid anti-gun politicians ever to serve in Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
As in most of the MCDV cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court, the issue concerned what type of minor offense actually constitutes an MCDV.
Just two years ago, in the Castleman case, the Supreme Court had found that a Tennessee law prohibiting a simple assault qualifies as an MCDV. The
Tennessee statute only required proof of an intent to cause an offensive touching, without any proof of physical injury, the Supreme Court found it
qualified as an MCDV offense, ignoring the express language of the Lautenberg Amendment, which specifies a person cannot be convicted of an MCDV without
proof of "use ... or threatened use of physical force." In the Castleman case, however, the Court ignored the language of the statute, and substituted
its opinion as to why it thought the law was written, imagining that the purpose of the law was better achieved by not requiring any intent to injure
another. We filed a brief in that case as well, but the arguments we advanced were unsuccessful then. See United States v. Castleman.
In Mr. Voisine's case, the Maine statute under which he was found guilty did not even require proof of an intent to cause an offensive touching. The
Maine statute only required that the act was grossly negligent or reckless, leading to an offensive touch.
Our brief begins by noting that the First Circuit's opinion was lawless, since that court illegally and unconstitutionally usurped the legislative power
vested by Article I in Congress alone, in order to re-write the statute to its liking. Further, our brief asserts that the fixed rule outlawing "physical
force," as set forth in the statute, has been corrupted by an evolving standard that empowers courts and juries to change the law to fit what it believes
to be changing times.
At stake, then, is the further erosion of the rule of law, at the expense of the Second Amendment, which has been under attack in the lower federal courts
ever since the Supreme Court decided in 2008 that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitution right of individual citizens.
In Voisine, we wage a counterattack, reminding the Court of its own precedents which prohibit deprivation of an American citizen's rights, except upon
proof of voluntary relinquishment of those rights. In support of this claim, we point out that the citizen's rights to the freedoms of religion, speech,
press, assembly, and petition cannot be taken away just because a citizen has broken a law. Why should the right to keep and bear arms be treated
differently?
Oral argument in this case is set for later this month - February 29, 2016.
Remarkably, this is our 10th brief in the last decade defending the Second Amendment against the ghost of Frank Lautenberg. Some of these cases involved
amicus briefs (Wyoming (2 briefs), Hayes (1 brief), Skoien (2 briefs), Castleman (1 brief), Voisine (1 brief)). In
another case, we represented a victim of this law (Fischer (3 briefs)).
Taking the lead in defending the Second Amendment in each of these 10 filings were Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation. Joining GOA and GOF
on our brief in the Voisine case were Gun Owners of California, U.S. Justice Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Institute
on the Constitution.
|
