From the article:

"In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas cited Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” He said the decision is an example of how the court’s approach to deciding these kinds of cases has led lower courts on a “journey Through the Looking Glass” during which the justices have found many “strange things.” He said that like Alice, the court has strayed far “down the rabbit hole.”

“I would hold Taylor accountable for what he actually did and uphold his conviction,” he wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, agreeing that the court’s cases in this area of the law have “veered off into fantasy land.”

Very interesting news, but I get a feeling somehow we are missing something.

I highly suggest reading the whole SCOTUS opinion on this: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf

After reading through the whole opinion it becomes clear that this case is really not about gun control at all. It's about applying "categorical approach" to laws related to violent crimes to determine whether a particular crime falls under "violent crime".

The dissent by Thomas explains this very clearly, and is worth reading. Essentially, the SCOTUS has been taking this approach where instead of seeing whether a criminal committed a violent crime, they look at the crime as a category and then think about imaginary cases and decide whether the crime could have been committed without using violence. This results in absurdities such as:

First Circuit considered whether a terrorist’s conviction for federal arson—which he committed in the course of carrying out the Boston Marathon bombings—counted as a crime of violence under §924(c). Tsarnaev and his brother intentionally detonated bombs that killed three people, including an 8-year-old, and injured hundreds more.

Yet, the categorical-approach precedents led the First Circuit to the admittedly “counterintuitive” conclusion that federal arson resulting in death arising from a terrorist bombing was not a crime of violence.

So, the SCOTUS concluded that boston marathon bombing was not a violent crime. Makes you feel like screaming, right?

Same with the present case. The guy who was a wholesale drug dealer tried to shake down one of his retail dealers, using his gun to threaten him, ended up shooting and leaving him to bleed to death, and yet the court decided it was not a crime of violence since an imaginary criminal named Adam could have committed the same crime without using violence.

I believe this whole thing is being built up to let violent criminals like Antifa go scott free even after burning down cities and killing numerous people. I believe this is a harbinger to some bigger cases yet to come down the pipeline.

The 7-2 decision united both conservative and liberal justices, though one dissenting justice compared the result to “Alice in Wonderland.” The justices said the law can’t be used to lengthen the sentences of criminals convicted of a specific attempted robbery offense.

This is my first post and I think I was able to successfully include the link!!! Anyway, this came across my phone, general left news preloaded into my phone, I don't usually read them but something lead me to check this out and I was amazed by the terms used, just seemed like I couldn't possibly be reading what I was...

I'll say this: I'm a felon who has firearms and no bullshit law will ever change that. I'll do anything I have to to protect myself and my family from all threats. This includes any citizen or government employee who is foolish enough to challenge my resolve.