"I am aware of that . I am just having trouble reconciling the idea of removing a fundamental right based on a misdemeanor conviction and was wondering if there is similar precedent elsewhere ."
"I agree with you to some extent . First , the Mr. Hayes was convicted of this crime before the Lautenberg Amendment was passed . Secondly , Virginian law ( where the case originates from ) makes no distinction between a domestic relationship ( that which he was tried and convicted of ) and between the agressor . Quote majority ruling : A domestic relationship , although it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a Â§922 ( g ) ( 9 ) firearms possession prosecution , need not be a defining element of the predicate offense . Pp . 4Â–13 . Bulldung . If congress wanted to make it simpler they would have just said battery instead of domestic violence . How the heck they came up with that is beyond me . They basically expanded the meaning of the Lautenberg Amendment , which is a big NO NO ! I think that is what Justice Roberts was saying in his dissent . Quote Justice Roberts dissent : That reading does not require the specified domestic relationship in clause ( ii ) to be an element of the predicate misdemeanor statute . Individuals convicted under generic use-of-force statutes containing no reference to domestic violence would there-fore be subject to prosecution under Â§922 ( g ) ( 9 ) . .... The majority also points out that interpreting Â “ commit-ted byÂ ” to modify the Â “ useÂ ” of force would render the wordÂ “ committedÂ ” superfluous . That may be so , but as shown , reading Â “ committed byÂ ” to modify Â “ offenseÂ ” has its own flaws . All this goes to show that the statute is not an example of elegant syntax under either reading . The majority properly acknowledges that , under its view , the statutory language reflects Â “ less-than-meticulous draftingÂ ” and Â “ syntactical awkwardness , Â ” and Â “ is not a model of the careful drafterÂ ’ s art.Â ” Ante , at 6 , 12 , 13 . I am willing to acknowledge the same with respect to my reading . But I conclude from such reciprocal shortcomings that the text is at least ambiguous . Which is why this law needs to be rewritten . There is a lot more , but I find the majority decision hard to believe . It just does n't make sense ( well to me that is . ) BTW , this by no means I support Domestic Violent offenders , etc . On the contrary , I believe they should lose their gun rights if convicted of domestic violence , BUT , this decision is wrong . The pieces do not fit together . That is Mr. Hayes was convicted of battery , not domestic violence . The government screwed up , so he should be walking free right now ."
"I am just having trouble reconciling the idea of removing a fundamental right based on a misdemeanor"
"I agree with you"