Going full 'devil's advocate' mode here: 1. Increase of 500% is from what to what? 2. IS there a misdemeanor that can result in a constitutional right taken away? (assuming there is a private right to bear arms, which I think there may not be).
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The gun advocate crowd insists that the Second Amendment only consists of the second clause "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. It's what advocates refer to when they insist that gun ownership and the right to have guns is Constitutionally unchallengably absolute. The preceding clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is never brought up. I don't think the Supreme Court has ruled on what constitutes a "militia" or what effect this could have on the "right" to bear arms. The wording only says that the militia that bestows this right be "well regulated."
None of the rights bestowed by The Bill of Rights are absolute. First Amendment Free Speech is limited by slander and libel laws, by the illegality of lying under oath, and did not allow any porn till fairly recently, and it is fairly well agreed upon that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not afforded First Amendment protection.
Machine guns and other weapons of mass murder did not exist when the Bill of Rights was voted into the Constitution and some of us who find them potentially dangerous would like to see ownership rights limited as not being part of that "well regulated militia" even if that would mean taking a first step down that "slippery slope" that theoretically could lead to the elimination of Second Amendment gun bearing rights altogether.
Operative word "convicted" (domestic abusers) cannot own guns (SCOTUS) but how about those not convicted because the victims either retract or refuse to go forward with charges? And where is the nationwide database that is judiciously updated by every state/municipal police authority? Not much will change with this ruling, IMO.