|
To stay on topic, here is my take:
I don't think the Lautenberg Amendment is unreasonable.
However, I DO think judges have a duty to interpret the law as it is written. In this case, the man was charged with a lesser crime rather than with domestic battery. Recognizing that, his state should have either convicted him of domestic battery or the Lautenberg Amendment should have been re-worded to account for that loophole.
This guy was NEVER convicted in court of domestic violence. He was convicted of battery, but a jury never officially found him guilty of DOMESTIC battery/violence.
Now, if something happens in my home and I manage to plea my case down to....disturbing the peace; in theory I might be unable to own firearms if 'disturbing the peace' reportedly involved slapping my wife (even if I was never convicted of it).
__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence
|