The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Texas' abortion restrictions got a lot of attention this week.
So much so that another ruling pretty much slipped public notice. But it is an important decision that reinforces protections for victims of domestic violence in Texarkana and across the nation.
On Monday, the court ruled 6-2 that a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse can be barred from owning a firearm.
While it's almost unheard of for those convicted of misdemeanors to lose their Second Amendment rights, the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1997 made an exception for anyone convicted of domestic violence or, in most cases, who is under a restraining order for stalking or domestic abuse.
A Maine man convicted of domestic abuse sued to have his access to guns restored.
Maine's domestic violence laws covers both intentional and reckless behavior.
Since he was not specifically convicted of "intentional" abuse, he should not be deprived of his rights, he argued. After all, it could have merely been "reckless" conduct.
The justice didn't buy it.
"A person who assaults another recklessly uses force no less than one who carries out that same action knowingly or intentionally," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority.
Two justices dissented. Clarence Thomas and Sonya Sotomayor, one conservative and one liberal, agreed that intent is crucial.
In our view the majority got it right. A history of domestic abuse, intentional or not, is a reliable indicator of future violence. But the law is just one part of the equation. It must be enforced. And we think it should be, with vigor.
