The Supreme Court just decided that no, not everyone should have access to firearms, upholding the federal law that if you are a domestic abuser, you should not be able to possess a gun. Seems like a no-brainer, but if you re a domestic abuser, you ve already proven yourself to not have much cognitive ability.The case in question was about a Maine resident who was mad he lost his right to possess a firearm. According to CNN: Stephen Voisine pled guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge in 2004 against a girlfriend. Five years later, he was investigated for shooting a bald eagle and as part of the investigation he turned over a firearm to authorities. Seems like a real winner. Oh, and a bald eagle? Really? And he thinks he should be able to own a gun?Well, guess what, Mr. Voisine, and all you other domestic abusers out there, you don t get to own a gun.Justice Elena Kagan read the opinion of the Court: Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a  misdemeanor crime of domestic violence  from possessing a firearm. That phrase is defined to include any misdemeanor committed against a domestic relation that necessarily involves the  use . . . of physical force.  The question presented here is whether misdemeanor assault convictions for reckless (as contrasted to knowing or intentional) conduct trigger the statutory firearms ban. We hold that they do. Kagan then cited the gun law that was enacted by Congress two decades ago: Congress enacted some 20 years ago to  close [a] dangerous loophole  in the gun control laws. United States v. Castleman. An existing provision already barred convicted felons from possessing firearms. But many perpetrators of domestic violence are charged with misdemeanors rather than felonies, notwithstanding the harmfulness of their conduct. And  [f]irearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination.  Accordingly, Congress added to prohibit any person convicted of a  misdemeanor crime of domestic violence  from possessing any gun or ammunition with a connection to interstate commerce. Guns and domestic violence are an incredibly lethal combination. Kudos to the Court for stepping up and doing the right thing. Not every Tom, Dick or Sally just deserves to have a gun just because of the Second Amendment. The amendment was written to arm standing state militias, that were to be trained and utilized by the federal government. It s pretty clear if you read the entire Constitution, especially Article 1 Section 8, and not just the Amendment added to arm the aforementioned militias.Hopefully this is just the beginning of the Supreme Court waking up and realizing guns are lethal and should be better regulated the whole way around. Maybe Congress can take a few notes.Featured Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Image