Monday, July 07, 2014

Students for Concealed Carry file lawsuit against THE Ohio State University.

(Columbus, Ohio) Today in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Students for Concealed Carry joined by Ohioans for Concealed Carry filed suit against The Ohio State University. The suit alleges that OSU is currently violating Ohio's preemption laws regarding firearms rights. The parties are represented by Barney DeBrosse LLC and attorney Michael Moran. The lawsuit can be found at the Franklin County Clerk's WEBSITE under case number 14 CV 6927. The complaint can be found here.

Monday, February 03, 2014

New Domestic Violence Firearm Disability Case Coming Soon.

The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a critical case involving firearm rights. In United States v. Castleman, the Court will interpret the federal law at 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) that creates a lifetime firearm ban for any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” Their decision will affect the rights of thousands of Ohioans with a conviction under Ohio Revised Code 2919.25.

The case involved James Alvin Castleman, who was convicted under a Tennessee Domestic Assault statute. Castleman was arrested for several alleged violations of federal law, including 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). He argued that his conviction did not constitute a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence because it did not require the “use of force” as an element. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Castleman that his conviction did not meet the definition, and the United States Attorney appealed to the Supreme Court.

On January 15, 2014, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Castleman’s case. They were especially critical of the Government’s argument that it would be a use of force if an individual, while taking a picture of a person, told that person to back up and they fell off of a cliff. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts emphasized that the Government advocates for an interpretation of the law that has no limiting principle. While the Court did not seem to agree with the breadth of the Government’s interpretation of the law, they did appear to worry that Castleman’s position would render 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) meaningless in much of the country.

We expect that it will be June of 2014 at the earliest before the Court issues its opinion in United States v. Castleman. As Ohio firearm rights lawyers, Barney DeBrosse will be ready and able to help our client’s determine how the Court’s opinion affects their constitutional right to bear our arms. Contact us today if you or someone you know has a conviction possibly involving domestic violence and is concerned about their firearm rights.

Monday, January 06, 2014

NEW CASE LAW ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND GUNS.

As gun lawyers, Barney DeBrosse, LLC closely monitors court cases that affect firearm rights and firearm disabilities. There is a case before the United States Supreme Court that is critically important for individuals who have lost their firearm rights due to a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (“MCDV”). On January 15, 2014, the Court will hear arguments in United States v. Castleman, on appeal from the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Castleman case will clarify which state convictions can create a federal firearm disability under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Under federal law, certain state convictions qualify as MCDVs. For a state law conviction to be disqualifying, it must: 1) be a misdemeanor under state law, 2) “ha[ve], as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon,” and 3) be committed against one of the statutorily defined family members. Furthermore, federal law does not look at the individual facts behind the conviction to determine whether it is disqualifying. Courts look only to the language of the statute, and determine whether every individual convicted of the offense meets the federal threshold for an MCDV. A specific state statute creates a disability only if every conviction under that statue would qualify as an MCDV. The question before the Supreme Court is what degree of physical force must a statute require in order for the statute to create an MCDV disability. Castleman was convicted in 2001 of violating a Tennessee law for committing a domestic assault. He argued, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) requires the use of strong or violent physical force for a domestic violence conviction to create a firearm disability. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) only requires a simple assault, e.g. any unwanted physical contact. Because of similarities between Tennessee’s domestic assault law and Ohio’s domestic violence law, if the Supreme Court rules in Castleman’s favor it could mean that there are no convictions under Ohio law which create an MCDV disability. As gun lawyers, we use our understanding of state and federal firearm law to help our clients regain their firearm rights. When our lawyers meet with clients who have a conviction under Ohio Revised Code 2919.25 for domestic violence, we sit down and analyze whether 1) the conviction would qualify as an MCDV disability under the current law, and 2) what their options will be after Castleman is decided. Unlike many felonies, most MCDV convictions in Ohio create a permanent, lifetime firearm disability. Castleman has the potential to undo the lifetime firearm disability that affects many otherwise law-abiding citizens in Ohio. If you or someone you know was arrested for or convicted of Ohio Revised Code 2919.25 domestic violence, contact Barney DeBrosse, LLC today for an analysis of your individual situation.