Anyone convicted of domestic violence can draw permanent gun ban

Anyone convicted of domestic violence in California will be permanently barred from possessing a gun even if no physical injury was inflicted, a state appeals court has ruled.

The decision Tuesday by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno is the first in California since the U.S. Supreme Court in May clarified a 1996 law that extended the federal ban on firearms possession to those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

The federal law previous to 1996 had limited the ban to felonies, but many spousal battery cases are prosecuted as misdemeanors, with lesser sentences. Rejecting arguments that the ban should apply only to those who injure their spouses, the high court said the federal law must be applied state-by-state, depending on each state's definition of the misdemeanor crime.

The Supreme Court ruling opened the door for an expansion of the gun ban in states like California that define domestic violence broadly. Lynn Rosenthal, President Obama's adviser on violence against women, said the ruling would "save women's lives."

California's misdemeanor domestic violence law covers "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence" against one's partner. The "force" includes any deliberate contact that causes physical or mental harm.

This week's case involved Scott James of Tulare County, who pleaded no contest in 1996 to a misdemeanor charge of battery against his wife.

James applied to be a reserve deputy sheriff in 2008, and when he tried to buy a gun in 2011, he was turned down on the grounds that he had been convicted of domestic violence.

James sued, saying the crime he admitted did not necessarily involve violence or physical injury. State courts had reached different conclusions on whether the gun ban applies only to violent attacks, but the appeals court, citing the recent Supreme Court ruling, said Tuesday that it covers all spousal battery cases.

This interpretation "furthers Congress' intent to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence," said Justice Jennifer Detjen in the 3-0 ruling. "A zero-tolerance policy is not promoted by requiring agencies (and ultimately courts) to differentiate between, for example, a slap and a punch, or a poke to the chest and a poke in the eye."

The Calguns Foundation, which was not a party to the case, said Wednesday that the state Supreme Court should step in to protect gun owners' rights.

"We believe the definition (of domestic violence) that's used in this case is entirely too broad," said foundation spokesman Craig DeLuz.