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