The full article goes into more detail. I'm sure we've all "heard" of anecdotal cases of "he said/she said" misdemeanor domestic violence where there is no physical evidence of physical force being used to the extent necessary to result in a visible wound/bruise, and yet there are sometimes convictions without any other evidence from third party eyewitnesses or recorded evidence of the event. I almost hesitate to say it, but perhaps there is a whiff of "political correctness" in this issue, and there should be more detailed criteria for rescinding Second Amendment rights for particular types or levels of violence, rather than just a conviction for "generic" misdemeanor domestic violence? And what about parents or custodians who "spank" or "physically punish" their children? Every day there are articles about parents who kill their children... and I'm sure many more who physically harm their children... surely at least some of that non-fatal violence against minors would merit the same punishment as that for adults engaged in similar behavior against each other... but maybe that is prosecuted as misdemeanor "domestic violence".

Court Weighs Gun Ownership for Domestic-Violence Offenders

https://www.courthousenews.com/court-weighs-gun-ownership-domestic-violence-offenders/

An Ohio man who pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor domestic-violence charge in 1997 argued before the Sixth Circuit on Wednesday that the federal law preventing him from owning a gun is unconstitutional.

Terry Stimmel sued the U.S. attorney general in Akron federal court in 2014, arguing that a misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction “cannot categorically be labeled a ‘serious’ offense” that precludes gun ownership.

The law at the center of the dispute – 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) – says it is unlawful for anyone “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to possess any firearm or ammunition.

U.S. District Court Judge John R. Adams ruled in 2015 that Stimmel’s claim did not implicate the Second Amendment because “the prohibition at issue falls squarely within the authority to disarm serious lawbreakers in existence well before the enactment of the Second Amendment.”

And even if the argument had implicated the Second Amendment, Judge Adams ruled that the ban on gun ownership for perpetrators of domestic violence serves a compelling governmental interest.