Voisine v. United States
United States Supreme Court case
Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban in U.S. federal law extends to those convicted of reckless domestic violence. The court reached its judgment in a 6–2 majority.
Background
In 2009, an anonymous caller in Maine notified officials that a bald eagle had been shot in Kingman. Investigating officers discovered the primary suspect, Stephen L. Voisine, was not legally permitted to possess a firearm. His prior domestic violence conviction barred him from possessing a gun, resulting from the Lautenberg Amendment signed into law in 1996. During Voisine's interrogation, he admitted to shooting the eagle. Subsequently, officials discovered his 28-year criminal record included 14 convictions for assault and domestic violence.
Voisine joined William Armstrong III to argue that their domestic violence convictions should not have precluded them from owning guns in the first place. They requested the Supreme Court to consider whether the Lautenberg Amendment was constitutional in the light of the precedent of District of Columbia v.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Voisine v. United States” as united States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as united States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 28, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q24896286. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2016, 2009 and 1996.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Voisine v. United States”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Voisine v. United States primary sources, Voisine v. United States archive and Voisine research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Voisine v. United States”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Voisine v. United States” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.