should have taken both. you can yell at someone and be slapped with domestic violence bs.
if there is no violent crime, denying weapons should not ever enter the equation at all.
Bfl
The political hacks in black muumuus decided to not look at the Constitutionality of the overall law.
Color me surprised. Not.
It’s a violation of the rights of many simply accused during quarrels, many who have not physically assaulted anyone. It’s part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and was pushed by academic feminists, bar associations and other related socialist interests.
It would be better to focus on keeping weapons out of the hands of people under the influence of drugs that affect personal judgment or coordination (”incompetent” folks in early American speech and law: those without the mental capacity to make good decisions).
Looks interesting. This case would not have been taken except for the possibility of an overturn of lower court.
What should have been litigated is the ex post facto loss of Second Amendment Rights for individuals that plead guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault prior to the 1997 passage of the Lautenberg Amendment.