News titles are divergent between whether this is a new ruling or an upholding of another law, but in a nutshell, Supreme Court's other thing today was: convicted of domestic violence = no guns for you.
Ohhh ho ho ho no...
The supreme court's OTHER other thing today was unanimously, that is EIGHT TO ZERO, vacating the corruption conviction of former VA governor McDonnell and
setting precedent for a much higher threshold being required to charge any politician with corruption. The hoi polloi have been rather uppity of late, what with their occupy this and tea party that and insurgency candidate support, and our robed masters needed to remind everyone that the establishment elite is just a higher class of being and can't be bothered to be shackled to things like ethics, oversight, transparency and accountability.
Chief Justice Roberts insisted the government would still be able to make cases against corrupt officeholders. In fact, it will be much more difficult. In the McDonnell case, prosecutors showed that the former governor’s interventions on behalf of Mr. Williams often followed directly — in some cases, within minutes — after the businessman had greased his or his wife’s palm. Yet those interventions, which included strong suggestions that state officials help Mr. Williams by persuading state university researchers to test his firm’s diet supplement, may have been insufficiently overt or conclusive to meet the court’s narrow definition of an “official act.”
That will give comfort to other ethics-scorning politicians who face prosecutorial scrutiny now and in the future, including Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who faces
federal corruption charges.
Strange how every other lower federal appellate court seemed to think the conviction should stand, but the entire supreme court disagreed to a man/woman.
If you can't convict Bob Fucking McDonnell (R-VA) of corruption, fact is, you can't convict any national politician any more.
Our descent into federal collapse just took another step.[DOUBLEPOST=1467083966,1467083875][/DOUBLEPOST]
That seems fair enough. Being a domestic abuser indicates that you are willing to be violent to your loved ones. Seems like allowing a gun to enter the situation is just begging for tragedy.
This may surprise some people, but I agree. When you are convicted of a crime, you get rights taken away by definition, and the second amendment rights of violent convicts has always been one of those. This is different from the "watch list" debate because this requires a
conviction.