I peeked at the news this morning, after seeing the Supreme Court ruled on guns and domestic abusers. I applaud their decision to uphold the law depriving domestic abusers of their rights to own a gun.
Here is a selection from the news on the latest ruling:
"The plaintiffs pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault
charges after slapping or shoving their partners. Later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their
possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic
abusers." [from NPR - Oregon Public Broadcasting]
Both plaintiffs argued that the weapons ban should not apply to them because their
misdemeanor cases were for "reckless conduct" rather than intentional
Five of the Supreme Court Justices upheld the law: "34 States plus the District of Columbia—defined such misdemeanor
offenses to include the reckless infliction of bodily harm," Kagan
wrote." [Huff Post]
Justice Thomas asked the attorney defending the conviction of the two men
whether any other misdemeanor conviction could cause a defendant the
loss of "a constitutional right.
"He inveighed against the majority for agreeing to allow a single minor
reckless assault deprive a citizen of an enshrined constitutional right
to own guns. "We treat no other constitutional right so cavalierly," he
concluded." [from Mother Jones]
Since no other Constitutional right can deprive some other innocent person of their lives in one second, I can only conclude that Justice Thomas and those who agree with him have stopped engaging with the elephant sized arguments over gun rights, and settled for battling gnats.
An acquaintance recently lost his driver's license because illness and aging made him unable to pass a test for logic and coordination. But we do not test gun owners for rational thinking or for coordination. Do we take away their gun permits if they become senile or lose their eyesight? Where is the logic in that?