|
Abstract
|
In the United States, domestic violence can be violent, physical attacks that may include firearms, and psychological, economic, and sexual abuse. With domestic violence being a continuous issue in this country, millions of citizens each year have been victims of domestic violence with an estimated death toll of 1,300. Moreover, this is a major concern that this is country is faced with that has required much advancement in laws being implemented for the safety of law abiding citizens.
In 1968, Congress enacted the Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) in an effort to prohibit the possession of firearms from individuals previously convicted of a felony. This act was implemented to protect citizens of the United States from individuals who used guns to harm others. However, deviations in society such as the increase of domestic violence disclosed that there was a loopholes in the GCA. The loopholes included individuals who committed misdemeanor assaults of domestic violence being allowed to possess guns. The loopholes led to 18 U.S.C. ยง 922(g)(9) (The Lautenberg Amendment) being enacted by Congress. The sole purpose of this amendment was to restrict individuals who were convicted of misdemeanor assaults of domestic violence from possessing fire arms and to provide regulations for this offense that the GCA did not provide.
Subsequently, cases such as United States v. Castleman decided by the United States Supreme Court held that individuals convicted of knowingly and intentional conduct of domestic violence are prohibited from gun possession. In the case at hand, Voisine v. United States, the Court held that the conviction of domestic violence led by reckless conduct is also a prohibition of gun possession by individuals who commit this crime. However, there has been opposition that implicated that the Court's decision is a violation and infringement upon the Second Amendment right of citizens being able to bear arms because of domestic violence offenses.
Additionally, in my research, I specified that the prohibition of individuals possessing guns who committed the crime of domestic violence protects law abiding citizens in the United States. When individuals violate the laws that are implemented for the safety of individuals, this suggests that there is a deficiency in abiding by the laws and a lack of carefulness in the lives of others. Further, reckless conduct is when a person consciously disregards a particular risk that can take place because of his or her actions to another individual. With this notion, reckless conduct should be equivalent to knowingly and intentional conduct because it suffices in the same way and it can result in the endangerment of citizens as knowingly and intentional conduct can.
Davis, Monette, The Repugnant Effect of Reckless Conduct and Domestic Violence: Voisine v. United States and the Restriction of Firearms (December 22, 2017). Southern University Law Review (2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3132071 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3132071
Language: en |