A certain moral flexibility
Joseph E. Koll, Jr., 50, of Princeton, was convicted of disorderly conduct in 1998. Some nine years later, in 2007, Koll tried to buy a handgun. The Justice Department denied his request, citing federal law that bars handgun sales to domestic abusers.
Koll argued the law doesn't apply in his case because he was convicted of disorderly conduct. The 2nd District Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling a domestic relationship exists whenever an aggressor and victim live together or have lived together.
Clearly the law is being flexed to punish the man for a crime the state believed it couldn't successfully prosecute him for.
Not that I'd be psyched to live in his neighborhood or region if he were armed.
Got an argument, pro or con?