SCOTUS Deals Devastating Blow To Violent Ammosexuals


It should be common sense: if you are a violent person who has been arrested for misdemeanor assault on your spouse, you should be stripped of your gun rights. Gun nuts, however, does not agree with this (of course) and they have been fighting the federal government over the law. On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) finally ruled on whether or not people who commit reckless acts of domestic violence should have their Second Amendment rights taken away and it was bad news for the ammosexuals.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning weapons.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession.

Two Maine men, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence charges after slapping or shoving their partners and later found out that their gun rights were revoked. Voisine was charged with violating the law prohibiting him from owning guns after police found out about his domestic violence conviction while investigating him for killing a bald eagle. Armstrong was made aware that his gun rights were restricted after police found six guns and a large quantity of ammunition in his home while searching his home for drugs.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel

Just so we are clear, these are EXACTLY the types of people we want to keep guns away from. The reason the law was passed to strip domestic abusers of their right to own firearms is because research shows they are more likely to commit domestic crimes with their guns in the future. A person who killed our national bird and a man who was being accused of drug crimes are not exactly “responsible, law-abiding citizens.”

However, the men argued that they should be allowed to own firearms because they were both convicted of “reckless assault” not intentional assault. Their appeals were struck down by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, so the plaintiffs appealed to the SCOTUS. In the majority opinion of Voisine v. United States, Justice Elena Kagan explained that their rights were revoked because they knew there was substantial risk of bodily harm when they committed their crimes:

Acts undertaken with awareness of their substantial risk of causing injury…The harm such conduct causes is the result of a deliberate decision to endanger another—no more an “accident” than if the “substantial risk” were “practically certain…

In sum, Congress’s definition of a “misdemeanor crime of violence” contains no exclusion for convictions based on reckless behavior. A person who assaults another recklessly “use[s]” force, no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally.

In other words, when they assaulted their partners, they did it knowing that they could harm them. The word “reckless” in the Maine law makes no difference because at the end of the day, they knew what they were doing and that’s why they pleaded guilty.

Once again the SCOTUS has ruled that there is no absolute right to own firearms. This is where that whole “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment comes into play; the part of the amendment that gun nuts seem to think does not exist. I’m sure we will see much outrage over the next few days from violent ammosexuals and the right-wingers who believe that even violent criminals should be allowed to assault their spouses with their guns in peace.


Featured image via Allison Shelley/Getty Images

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply