First they came for the wifebeaters...

The Supreme Court has decided to not let people who physically abuse their spouses keep their guns. I appreciate this. One would think it would be a unanimous decision but one would be wrong.

There was a lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas. 

In his lone dissent, Thomas chastises the rest of the Court, including the conservatives who joined him in Bruen: They all read his decision wrong, he wrote, which does require something closer to a historical twin than a cousin in upholding gun regulations. 

He spent pages railing against the government’s interpretation that all unfit or dangerous people should be stripped of their guns, equating it to a tyrannical stomping on a sanctified right. 

“While Congress cannot revive disarmament laws based on race, one can easily imagine a world where political minorities or those with disfavored cultural views are deemed the next ‘dangers’ to society,” he wrote, clearly imagining, with a shudder, his MAGA allies being disarmed.

Clarence seems to think that this is the way it starts, taking guns away from people who beat and shoot their wives, but it is obviously a slippery slope. Next thing you know they will be coming after serial killers and rapists and people who like to harm small animals.

“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” Thomas wrote. “Yet, in the interest of ensuring the Government can regulate one subset of society, today’s decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more.”

Back in the 1800's, where Clarence is from, there were no laws that forbid beating or killing your wife or slave. Women had no rights. 

According to Thomas’s opinion, regulation on a firearm must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” an impossibly vague guideline that has sparked chaos in the lower courts. But it was par for the course for the staunch originalist, who consistently leans on eighteenth-century doctrine.

This is the idiocy path that originalism leads us too.  God help us.