Interesting Second/Sixth Amendment Interaction Case from 8th Circuit

[vvvvvvv]

I hope this winds its way up to the Supreme Court.

The comparison is made between a (15 year suspension of driving privileges for a third DUI) and (lifetime prohibition from possessing firearms for misdemeanor domestic violence).

According to the 8th Circuit, a 15 year suspension of driving privileges is a sufficient penalty enhancement to require a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, but a lifetime loss of the right to keep and bear arms "is simply a collateral consequence and does not affect whether the offenses are 'serious' for purposes of the Sixth Amendment."

United States v. Jardee

 

[Glocktogo]

A perfect example of how judges are not exempt from being retarded.

 

[loudshirt]

It is because women (main victims of domestic violence) are a protected class. Notice you can have an exclusive womens gym (I think one is called Curves), but not an exclusive mens gym. You can have an exclusive womens sports league (LPGA) but not mens.

Another thing. Driving is seen more as a right in this country than owning a gun.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

It is because women (main victims of domestic violence) are a protected class. Notice you can have an exclusive womens gym (I think one is called Curves), but not an exclusive mens gym. You can have an exclusive womens sports league (LPGA) but not mens.

Another thing. Driving is seen more as a right in this country than owning a gun.

Yep...they're quick to throw up that "sexual discrimination" issue when it's in their favor.

 

[Fourtho]

In short, the 6th amendment right to trial by jury has been construed only to apply to "serious" crimes. "Serious" later came to be "Six months or more maximum possible prison sentence" but with some exceptions.

This is the language right here that creates a problem.

While the maximum term of imprisonment will normally be the determining factor, the Court left open the possibility that a jury trial may be required for an offense for which the maximum term of incarceration is six months or less if a legislature has enacted additional penalties which, “viewed in conjunction with incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a ‘serious’ one.” Blanton, 489 U.S. at 543; accord Lewis, 581 U.S. at 326.​

The court is essentially saying that the lifelong deprivation of a constitutional right does not reflect a legislative communication that the underlying offense is "serious" and thereby protected by the 6th Amendment. However, I think it's important to note that the 8th circuit expresses some doubt as to whether or not the defendant's crime would be considered a domestic assault, notes that the prohibition from firearm ownership would be a serious deprivation of liberty, but simply is unwilling to expand upon the Supreme Court's 6-month maximum sentence possible "test" to determine if a crime is "serious" enough for a jury trial.

Amazing. If we get the 2nd Amendment ruling I think we're going to get this June (Chicago handgun ban case), this one would do well in the Supreme Court and I hope it gets there.

The 8th should get some recognition for saying that they did think the firearm prohibition was a serious deprivation. They did express some doubt as to whether or not the prohibition would apply to this case. They also said they simply didn't see a way to step outside of the Supreme Court's test.

They also blame it on Congress, and I think they're right to have done so:

Also, Congress was aware of the lack of entitlement to a jury trial for some of the misdemeanor offenses for domestic violence that it included within the prohibition imposed by § 922(g)(9). This is clear from the statutory language that defines “crimes of domestic violence” as set forth in part in § 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(II). United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d at 1313- 1314. The fact that Congress chose to include such offenses, notwithstanding the lack of a right to a jury trial, is some expression of legislative judgment about the relative “seriousness” of the offenses, albeit not the specific legislative judgment contemplated by the Supreme Court cases cited above, and is confirmatory of judgment that the firearms prohibition does not cause the six-month presumptive line to be exceeded.​

It will take the Supreme Court to patch that up.

 

[skyydiver]

Good post, Veg!