The Supreme Court upheld Congress's intent yesterday, keeping it illegal for people convicted of abusing their domestic partners to own firearms even if they were just charged with regular assault. Scalia, naturally, dissented. [Washington Post]
Can I just ask why we still stick by the whole "right to bear arms" thing? Seriously, I'm legitimately curious if there's a good reason for this to still even exist. On the one hand, I understand the self-defense angle. On the other, people might feel less likely to own one for protection if people aren't allowed to have them unless they are in a position of some authority (like, police officers, not that they're always any less of ass-hats).