As I see it, that is the core of this case, the domestic abuse complaint. The gun rights issues is secondary to that.
Not that that means the Supreme Court won't hear the case. It's just that I'd like a clearer-cut case of Second Amendment infringement on which to stake a victory.
That would be nice, Iron Jack. But I'd settle for "second-best." To me, that would be establishing with finality in federal law that Bill of Rights liberties are constitutional liberties two times: first, by the Constitution itself; second, by the first Ten Amendments (see its Preamble for the BoR's original intent).
A constitutional liberty recognizes an innate requirement of human existence which precedes the institution of government -- any government. Thus, constitutional liberties may not justly be "infringed" by government, absent a compelling government need, according to due process of law.
To put it another way, a constitutionally founded and protected personal right cannot be lost simply because one has been (politically) relegated to a government-specified group.
I think this is the jist (gist?) of Emerson, boil it all down.
And the feds did step on the toes of the states here, if you ask me. They stepped in, uninvited, and subsumed to themselves certain compelling interests that had formerly been the bailiwick of the states.
Judge Cummings, I gather, did not find any Tenth Amendment implication respecting the nefarious federal statute on which the feds are now trying to convict Dr. Emerson. But if I stretch, I think I do.
In the last analysis, I think Emerson is a Fifth Amendment case. Now RKBA has been firmly established as federal law -- in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
And so I gather we just have to wait and see what magic this particular constellation of happenstances might work.
So just hope for the best. Myself, I pray a lot these days. Thanks for writing, Iron Jack. All my best, bb.