[1Old Pro]

The case deals with a seemingly dry question of statutory interpretation: Does a misdemeanor crime that requires only a showing of recklessness qualify as a crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S. Code Sections 921 (a)(33)(A) and 922 (g)(9)? That latter part of the U.S. criminal code is known at the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, a.k.a the Lautenberg Amendment, signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. It makes it a felony for anyone who has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor ever to have anything to do with firearms: shipping or transporting them, owning or using them, even possessing ammunition. One strike and you’re out under this law.

HUGE implications here.

[lentulusgracchus]

HUGE implications here.

Sure. This is part, by the way, of Hillary's Violence Against Women Act. Think she's not an ideologue? Anyone who harbored illusions had better discard them pronto. She's the hardcore one, of the Dynamic Duo.

It's the first and only instance I know of in which a person convicted of a misdemeanor can lose his civil rights -- and of course the one that Beastwoman wants to strip away is the key to all the others.