Can someone explain Justice Sotomayor's dissent on the SCOTUS gun ruling?

[Jitter65]

Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I and II.

[IronLionZion]

1. This WaPo piece might help

When Justices Thomas and Sotomayor dissent together
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/27/when-justices-thomas-and-sotomayor-dissent-together/

[elleng]

2. The issues where she agreed, from a quick reading:

'To qualify as a “‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,’”
the Maine assault statute must have as an element
the “use of physical force.” §921(a)(33)(A)(ii). Be-cause mere recklessness is sufficient to sustain a conviction
under §207, a conviction does not necessarily involve
the “use” of physical force, and thus, does not trigger
§922(g)(9)’s prohibition on firearm possession. . .

The second category involves a person who intentionally
unleashes force that recklessly causes injury.'

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf

Looks like she's reading very literally. I don't know why.

[mr_liberal]

3. She and Thomas think the law is too braod.

For example, you could lose you gun rights for life just for something like a Mother slapping her son for talking back or something like that.

Id have to read the law in depth but if it is like that I think I agree that it is too broad. Im surprised that it was upheld.

[Jitter65]

4. Thanks. nt

[NutmegYankee]

5. It was a highly technical court case.

No one was challenging that domestic abusers can be denied gun ownership as a penalty for the crime. What was challenged was that Domestic violence under federal law appeared to require an intentional domestic violence act, whereas in Maine reckless or negligent behavior that resulted in a domestic injury also is considered domestic violence.

Sotomayor agreed that the domestic violence had to be an intentional act, and not an act of negligence or reckless behavior.

[Stallion]

7. Actually Not True-There Was an Amicus Brief Filed by Several Guns Rights Non-Profits

that argued that Federal Government can't restrict a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms-that it is essentially absolute

[NutmegYankee]

8. No actual party in the case was arguing that. So yes, it's true.

[Stallion]

9. This Statement Was Incorrect

"No one was challenging that domestic abusers can be denied gun ownership as a penalty for the crime"

[NutmegYankee]

10. No one in the actual case at hand. So no it isn't incorrect.

There are always some nuts on the fringe of every issue that are discounted. The discussion here was about the justice and the case at hand.

[djg21]

6. Read this

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-federal-use-of-force-encompasses-reckless-domestic-violence-misdemeanor-offenses/