Supreme Court upholds domestic violence gun ban


The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld federal law that prohibits people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning or possessing firearms.

Coincidentally, the ruling came on the same day that an article in RealClearPolitics.com asked the leading question, “Can Democrats ever win the gun debate?” One might suggest that Democrats have already won some ground, considering the makeup of the Supreme Court. The majority opinion in the 6-2 ruling was written by Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee.

But RealClearPolitics suggests that the way to guarantee victory for Democrats on the gun control argument is to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next president. But by saying so, writer Bill Scher unintentionally paints Democrats farther into a corner as “the party of gun control.” Anti-gunners are certainly celebrating the Kagan ruling.

With Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting and Justice Sonia Sotomayor joining him in part, the high court upheld a federal appeals court ruling in a case called Voisine v. United States. It involved the cases of two men who had pleaded guilty to domestic violence, but argued that they should not be disqualified from owning or possessing firearms. One of the men, Stephen Voisine, also got in trouble years after the assault on his girlfriend, but this time it was for killing a bald eagle, the ruling noted.

It was a case watched closely by gun rights groups because it essentially turns a state-level misdemeanor into a federal crime over which one can lose their Second Amendment rights.

Now Second Amendment activists are wondering how someone can lose their civil rights for being convicted of a state-level misdemeanor. Suddenly, they argue, a misdemeanor has become a federal felony.

H/T Seattle Gun Rights Examiner


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×