Gun Rights After Domestic Violence: A Look at Voisine v. United States

In June 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a pivotal ruling in Voisine v. United States, a case that examined the intersection of gun ownership rights and convictions for domestic violence. This decision built upon the 2014 ruling in United States v. Castleman, where the Court had previously determined that a “knowing” or “intentional” assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). However, the Castleman decision left open the question of whether a “reckless” assault also falls under this category—a question the Voisine case would ultimately address.

Understanding the Lautenberg Amendment

At the heart of the Voisine decision was the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment, a critical component of the Gun Control Act. The Lautenberg Amendment imposes firearm and ammunition restrictions on individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, treating them similarly to felons. This means they are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition.

The Ruling in Voisine v. United States

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) explicitly prohibits any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms or ammunition that have a connection to interstate commerce. The law defines such a misdemeanor as an offense under federal, state, or tribal law, committed by someone with a specified domestic relationship to the victim, that “has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force.”

In Voisine, the Supreme Court concluded that a reckless domestic assault does indeed qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under § 922(g)(9).

Key Points of the Court’s Reasoning

1. Definition of “Use” of Force: The Court analyzed the statutory language and determined that an offense qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” only if it includes the “use” of force as an element. The Court interpreted “use” to mean the “act of employing” something, which implies volition. Therefore, even though a person may not intend to cause harm, the reckless application of force still constitutes “use” of force under the law.
2. Legislative Intent: The Court examined the legislative history of § 922(g)(9) and noted that its purpose was to prevent individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors—regardless of whether the assault was intentional or reckless—from owning firearms. The Court observed that the majority of jurisdictions classified misdemeanor domestic violence offenses to include reckless infliction of bodily harm. Excluding such offenses from the statute would significantly undermine its intent.

Moreover, the Court pointed out that the Model Penal Code generally supports the idea that recklessness suffices for establishing criminal liability. Given that many states have incorporated this standard into their assault and battery statutes, Congress likely intended to include those convicted of reckless conduct within the scope of the gun prohibition.

Implications for Texas Law

In Texas, an Assault Bodily Injury charge can be brought based on intentional, knowing, or reckless actions. It’s crucial for anyone facing family violence or domestic violence charges in Texas to fully understand the consequences of pleading guilty to such charges. Pleading to an assault charge against a family member could result in a lifelong ban on gun ownership under federal law.

If you or someone you know is facing a family violence charge in Texas, it is essential to seek legal representation. Contact our experienced attorneys at (817) 203-2220 or reach out online to discuss your case and protect your rights.