But during Monday's argument, Scalia said possessing a gun was "lawful conduct," and a wife-beating charge lodged against a West Virginia man was "not that serious an offense."
The government lawyer shot back that the defendant "hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked her in the ribs. . . . "
"Then he should have been charged with a felony," Scalia interjected, "but he wasn't."
The defendant, Randy Hayes, pleaded guilty in 1994 to misdemeanor battery of his then-wife. Ten years later, police responded to a domestic violence call from his home and learned he had owned or sold several guns. He was convicted of illegal gun possession under the 1996 amendment.
The case of U.S. vs. Hayes does not turn on the 2nd Amendment, but instead on how the justices read the words of the 1996 law.
"This statute is a mess," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy commented at one point.
Roberts noted that California, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio have misdemeanor domestic violence laws. People convicted under those measures would not benefit from a ruling that limited the reach of the federal law, he said.
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said a ruling for Hayes "could re-arm thousands of convicted domestic violence abusers." About 14% "of all police officer deaths occur during a response to domestic violence calls," the group said.
On the other side, the Second Amendment Foundation said the "fundamental right" to own a gun should not be taken away over a misdemeanor.
--
david.savage@latimes.com
