BEARING ARMS — Since the passing of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court has moved one step closer toward undermining the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia left behind an admirable judicial record in defense of our Second Amendment rights, and his successor must be an individual to carry on his legacy.
In a recent article, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action provides additional insight on the implications of the Supreme Court balance and protections for Second Amendment rights:
The Voisine case arises out of the prohibition in the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9), which prohibits those convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” as that offense is defined, from possession of firearms and ammunition.
The defendants in Voisine had been convicted of domestic violence under Maine’s simple assault statute, which defines “assault” as including “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury or offensive physical contact” to another person. Neither had used a firearm or weapon of any kind in committing the offense. The question before the Court is the scope of the federal definition and whether it extends to misdemeanors which include reckless conduct as well as more deliberate conduct where there is an intent to harm. (Under that formulation, for example, an individual who injures a family member while recklessly driving could commit a qualifying domestic violence offense, potentially resulting in a permanent ban on firearm possession.)
As Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Ilana Eisenstein was winding up her argument in support of the expansive interpretation, Justice Thomas interjected to ask that she identify another “constitutional right that can be suspended based upon a misdemeanor violation of a State law.” While she struggled to conceive of a responsive example, Justice Thomas persisted in his line of questions, noting, “[Y]ou’re saying that recklessness is sufficient to trigger a … misdemeanor violation of domestic conduct that results in a lifetime ban on possession of a gun, which, at least as of now, is still a constitutional right.”
Learn about this case and its implications for your gun rights by reading more at https://www.nraila.org/