Losing Lawyer in Supreme Court Case Sees Possible Gun Ban for Spitters

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion finding a Second Amendment right to own handguns wasn’t mentioned in a decision yesterday that gave an expansive reading to a ban on gun possession by some criminals.

But that didn’t stop Troy Giatras, a lawyer representing the losing criminal defendant, from decrying the most recent opinion for expanding “the right of the government to restrict your Second Amendment gun ownership rights."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling yesterday held that a man convicted of battery on his wife could be convicted under a law banning gun possession for those convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," reports The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.

The convicted man, Randy Edward Hayes, had argued that the law didn’t apply to him because he was convicted only of simple battery, rather than battery against a family member, the BLT story says.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in United States v. Hayes (PDF) that such a reading of the law would frustrate Congress’ purpose, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination nationwide," Ginsburg wrote in the opinion (PDF).

The opinion was the court’s first since it found a constitutional right to own a gun last June, the Washington Post reports. But the 7-2 decision “contained nary a word about Heller v. District of Columbia, which struck down Washington's ban on handguns,” the story says.

The West Virginia Record published Giatras’ comments, made in a press release. Giatras said he is concerned the ruling could lead to loss of firearm rights “for many people, not just those convicted of domestic battery but also people found guilty of less serious misdemeanors,” according to the Record account.

“It could be as simple as spitting on someone, which can be considered battery," Giatras said.