Clarence Thomas Breaks 10 Years of High Court Silence WASHINGTON (CN) - The death of Justice Antonin Scalia promises to change the way the Supreme Court operates in many potentially momentous ways, but Monday's arguments presented a more minor if equally noticeable shift on the nation's highest court. 
 
 For the first time in 10 years, Justice Clarence Thomas asked a question from the bench. 
 
 The query happened during remarks by Justice Department attorney Ilana Eisenstein in the case Voisine v. U.S., a challenge to the federal ban against firearm ownership by convicted domestic abusers. 
 
 Having spent the last 15 minutes defending the ban against people convicted of "reckless" misdemeanor charges, Eisenstein asked whether there were any more questions, and Thomas unexpectedly raised his voice. 
 
 "Ms. Eisenstein, one question," Thomas said. 
 
 There was an audible shift in the packed courtroom as the audience sat up in their chairs and members of the press scrambled for their notebooks and pens to capture what occasioned the conservative justice to break his 10-year streak not asking questions from the bench. 
 
 "Can you give me - this is a misdemeanor violation," Thomas said. "It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?" 
 
 Following up with nine more questions, Thomas pushed Eisenstein to come up with another scenario in which such a suspension would be warranted. 
 
 Though Thomas has not asked a question from the bench since Feb. 22, 2006, his fellow justices seemed unfazed by the change Monday. All either looked ahead as usual or turned to look as Thomas rolled through his questions. 
 
 He asked whether the government could shut down a publisher who was reckless in displaying children in compromising circumstances, suspending its First Amendment rights. 
 
 Eisenstein prompted another question by saying there could be some measured restrictions on the publisher. 
 
 "So how is that different from suspending your Second Amendment right?" he asked. 
 
 The justice finally asked Eisenstein if the case would be better if the two petitioners had used guns in their acts of domestic violence, a point with which Eisenstein agreed. 
 
 Congress enacted a law in 1996 that prevents people convicted on misdemeanor domestic violence charges from owning guns. 
 
 In the case at hand, challengers Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong broke domestic-violence laws in Maine. 
 
 While Voisine assaulted a girlfriend in 2004, Armstrong pleaded guilty for doing the same to his wife in 2008. Both were charged with "intentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact." 
 
 Armstrong ran afoul of the federal law in 2010 when investigators found guns and ammunition in his house during a search in an unrelated drug case. He was soon charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by one previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. 
 
 Voisine, on the other hand, can point to the rumor of a dead bald eagle for his case's day in the Supreme Court. In 2009, with investigators homed in on him after receiving an anonymous tip claiming he had shot a bald eagle, Voisine turned over a gun, triggering his violation of the federal law. 
 
 Both men moved to dismiss their indictments, claiming the state-law assault and domestic-assault statutes were not enough to trigger the federal ban on owning guns. Federal judges denied the motions, and Voisine and Armstrong entered conditional pleas reserving the right to appeal their motions to dismiss. 
 
 The two men claim "reckless" is not a high enough standard to qualify as battery. The common law definition of battery requires the violence in question to be intentional, Voisine and Armstrong contend, meaning reckless conduct should not be covered under the federal weapons restriction. 
 
 Arguing for Voisine and Armstrong at the hearing Monday, Virginia Villa said the law considers intentionally offensive action, rather than the recklessness, because the statute contains the word "use." 
 
 Overall the justices did not seem to buy Villa's point. 
 
 Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that if a husband threw a bottle toward his wife, the bottle smashed against the wall and the pieces embedded themselves in her face, he would still be liable under domestic-violence statutes, even if he didn't mean to hit his wife with the bottle. 
 
 "Intentionality, in my mind, is misperceived, because you think - you're talking about intentionality as the act of causing the injury," Sotomayor said before delving into this hypothetical. 
 
 Villa offered another example: this time of a person she represented who slammed a door while running from a person trying to beat him up. Just because the pursuer got his fingers caught in the door does not mean Villa's client battered him, because his intent was to close the door, not to hurt the person he was fleeing from, Villa said. 
 
 But Justice Elena Kagan disagreed, arguing the act of slamming the door constituted a use of force. 
 
 "Doing something like driving a car 200 miles an hour, or throwing a plate, or slamming a door when somebody's hand is in the vicinity, all of those things involve the requisite risk and all of those things involve the use of physical force," Kagan said. 
 
 Villa's argument took up the majority of the hearing, lasting about half an hour before she sat down. 
 
 The justices allowed Eisenstein to speak uninterrupted for considerably longer than Villa, at least at the outset of her arguments. 
 
 Eisenstein said that states "overwhelmingly" include recklessness in battery statutes. Limiting misdemeanor crimes to those involving intentional conduce, she said, would force prosecutors to prove an abuser intended to cause injury in order to apply the federal weapons ban. 
 
 This prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to speak up. 
 
 "What's so bad about that?" He asked. "I mean, given her door example, for example, why would the accidental or perhaps you would say she - you know - he or she knew the person was close, why would that constitute misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?" 
 
 Eisenstein then contended Congress meant to cover recklessness in its weapons-ban law, even if it didn't explicitly do so. Dismissing Villa's door example, the attorney said it would be nothing more than negligence. 
 
 Roberts then asked if a man who speeds through a stop sign could prosecuted under her definition of battery if his wife is injured in the resulting accident. Eisenstein argued such prosecution could be possible, but that it would be a very narrow circumstance. 
 
 "My argument is the opposite, which is that this court should effectuate Congress's purpose by giving [the federal weapons ban] the meaning that Congress intended, which is to cover generally applicable assault and battery statutes regardless of whether, on a rare instance, they may end up covering an individual who was recklessly driving and injured a family member," Eisenstein said. 
 
 While this point caused some back and forth among the justices, Eisenstein summed up her argument by suggesting the government's interpretation of the law would primarily only effect people who committed clear domestic violence. 
 
 "In the face of petitioner's hypothetical's, petitioner struggles to even conceive of a hypothetical example of where there is a reckless battery that would - against a family member that would not constitute a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," Eisenstein said. 
 
 As is its custom, the court made a transcript of the groundbreaking hearing available this afternoon. ||||| WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes. 
 
 The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons. 
 
 The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home. 
 
 But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states. 
 
 More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public. 
 
 Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right." 
 
 The high court also turned away a second case involving guns and the federal law that bars people convicted of crimes from owning guns. 
 
 The Trump administration had urged the court to review an appellate ruling that restored the rights of two men who had been convicted of non-violent crimes to own guns. 
 
 The federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled for the two men. The crimes were classified as misdemeanors, which typically are less serious, but carried potential prison sentences of more than a year. Such prison terms typically are for felonies, more serious crimes. 
 
 The administration says that the court should have upheld the blanket prohibition on gun ownership in the federal law and rejected case-by-case challenges. 
 
 Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have heard the administration's appeal. 
 
 Daniel Binderup of Manheim, Pennsylvania, was 41 when he pleaded guilty to "corruption of minors" after acknowledging that he had been involved in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old employee of his bakery business. The crime is a misdemeanor yet carries with it a maximum prison term of five years, although Binderup was given probation instead of time behind bars. 
 
 Julio Suarez was convicted in Maryland of carrying a handgun without a license, a misdemeanor with a possible prison term of up to three years. Suarez received a six-month sentence, which was suspended, and a year of probation.
– Clarence Thomas broke a decade of silence when the case was being heard, and now, a ruling: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that even those convicted of reckless, rather than intentional, domestic abuse can be denied gun-ownership rights under a federal ban. The case involved two Maine men who said their guilty pleas for hitting their partners (which led to misdemeanor abuse convictions, per the AP) should not disqualify them from owning a gun. In a 6-2 opinion by Elena Kagan, the justices rejected their claims. The Wall Street Journal reports that the case's notoriety ratcheted up after Thomas' questions, and he issued what USA Today calls a "blistering dissent" (he was joined by Sonia Sotomayor). It reads in part: "In construing the statute before us expansively so that causing a single minor reckless injury or offensive touching can lead someone to lose his right to bear arms forever, the court continues to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right."