Believe it or not, it took a case escalating all the way to the Supreme Court to confirm that people convicted of domestic abuse can be prevented from owning a gun. Sure, those convicted of felony domestic violence lose their right to own guns, but this case tested whether the ban applies to those “only” convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse charges. Yep. It took the Supreme Court to figure that out.
It’s also an interesting case because Clarence Thomas spoke during oral arguments. Yes, he can talk! And now that Scalia is gone he apparently felt emboldened to ask questions and things. It had been ten years since he had opened his mouth, a reprieve for which I suppose we should all be grateful.
In his dissent, Thomas made the distinction between a person who intentionally throws a punch and someone who recklessly swings a baseball bat too close to another person. Now I don’t know about you, but when I wake up with a concussion my first thought is “Hey, I wonder if this is the result of something intentional, or just reckless.”
Look, I’m not an idiot–OK I am an idiot–but even I understand that this is about a bigger legal concept. An equally ridiculous, bigger legal concept.
Yet to think that this is the case that ignited such passion in Thomas is, well, mind boggling. It is this complex, multi-faceted case that keeps him up at night: what will these convicted abusers do without a gun to protect themselves? I mean, a history of violence is no reason to tromp on their Second Amendment rights.
The fact that we are at a point where this is even a question, let alone a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court, makes me say WTF is wrong with us?