Should domestic abusers who get convicted of minor domestic-violence charges get to keep their right to own guns just because their crimes were merely reckless, as opposed to premeditated? That's more or less the question the Supreme Court was considering in Voisine v. US, a somewhat obscure case that was languishing on the court's docket as one of the last cases decided of the term. In a 6-2 opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the high court answered that question with a muted "no."
The case challenges a 1996 amendment to the federal Gun Control Act, sponsored and named after the late New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), that barred people convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses from owning firearms. Violating the law carried a federal felony charge with a 10-year maximum sentence attached. The law was a triumph for women's advocates because it recognized that people guilty of domestic violence were rarely charged with felonies and banned from gun ownership, and that there was a documented relationship between domestic violence and gun homicides. The law was designed to keep guns out of the hands of those perps, even when they'd only been convicted of misdemeanors.
So according to the Supreme Court even if you only got drunk and punched your girlfriend in the face, while waving a gun around, without premeditation, you still must surrender your 2nd Amendment rights.
Oh that is not go to go over well at a certain compound by a dead lake.
Though in all fairness Track has not yet been convicted of attacking his now pregnant fiance and beating her like a stray dog, so perhaps he can still avoid having to give up the guns that were more precious to him than his own daughter.
However I think that if anybody were to ask the people around Track if he should keep his arsenal we would hear a resounding NO.
Well except for his mother of course, who believes that guns don't cause domestic violence, bitches who don't know their place cause domestic violence.