Charleston
Attorney
Troy
Giatras Is Concerned about Case’s Wide Implications
The United States Supreme Court today ruled against Randy Hayes of Marion County, W.Va., in a case that could have wide implications for gun ownership across the nation.
“This opinion expands the right of the government to restrict your Second Amendment gun ownership rights,”
Charleston
attorney Troy N. Giatras, who represented Hayes, said.
The case hinged on whether a conviction of misdemeanor simple battery under West Virginia law in 1994 fulfilled the definition under federal law for conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Also at issue was whether the newer federal law could be applied retroactively to a 1994 conviction.
“I am disappointed that the justices did not agree with our position,” Giatras said. “I also am concerned that this ruling could lead to the loss of the right to own firearms for many people, not just those convicted of domestic battery but also people found guilty of less serious misdemeanors. It could be as simple as spitting on someone, which can be considered battery.”
The Supreme Court issued the 7-2 ruling today in the case of United States v. Hayes (No. 07-608), a Second Amendment case that originated in Marion County, W.Va., after a 2004 arrest. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. Giatras argued the case before the Supreme Court on Nov. 10, 2008.
In 2007, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hayes, but the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the case to the Supreme Court. One reason the Supreme Court apparently agreed to hear the case was that the Fourth Circuit ruling conflicted with decisions made by courts in other federal circuits.
“I think the implications of this Supreme Court ruling could go as far as affecting someone who had a dispute with a family member that appeared to have been resolved in magistrate’s court with a seemingly innocuous agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor,” Giatras said. “Even if a domestic relationship was not shown in the underlying case, the federal law later could be used to convict the person of a felony and revoke that person’s right to own any kind of firearm, if such a domestic relationship can be proven.”
The ruling has no immediate effect on Hayes, who already has served his sentence, but it means he can never possess a firearm for the rest of his life.
“I want to be clear that I don’t condone domestic violence, and I believe the government has good cause to prevent certain individuals from owning firearms,” Giatras said. “But I am concerned that the federal law now could affect many people who made simple, minor mistakes they thought were long behind them. I hope common sense will prevail in enforcing the law, but anyone in doubt about a past conviction should consult a lawyer.”
