What I’m getting at here is the High Court is creating another “special relationship” for the purpose of claiming the power to assign our rights. If assault is bad, then assault is bad.
Why does it become special if it involves a “domestic relationship”? Find that clause in the constitution. This is not different from gay marriage or government finance of abortion.
Just because it “feels right” seems to be the judicial standard.
No, the Court did not create any special relationship. State legislatures in all 50 states made domestic violence a separate crime from ordinary assault. Congress then said that people convicted of that crime cannot possess guns. (And the Lautenberg Amendment was enacted unanimously, or nearly so, IIRC.) Blame the state legislators and Congress, not the Court. The Court is enforcing what Congress said; to do otherwise would be judicial activism. (Unless the statute is unconstitutional, of course, but the defendant in this case did not challenge the constitutionality of the Lautenberg Amendment.)