I'm not so much opposed to the loss of firearms rights (except for the fact that the Virginia Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 13, provides an absolute right to carry) with respect to physical attacks. But what bothers me is that any touch, no matter how slight, can result in a conviction, and there is no well-defined procedure for restoration of firearms rights. It is absolutely absurd to provide for the same degree of freedom from touching within a marriage as applies between strangers on the street. The statute was originally drafted to overcome the common law privilege against prosecutions for acts committed between spouses. At common law (by the way, you'll notice the statute doesn't say anything about the marital privilege - this is an example of how rights are lost by simply failing to mention them in a statute, the main reason the fake castle doctrine bills are defective), no crime was committed for any assault (offer to touch) or battery (actual touching) between spouses. What we need to do, I think, is bring the marital assault statute up a bit by requiring the application of not only physical force (as defined by the amendment) but actual violence, and completely getting rid of the language that makes any touch (or offer to touch) one's spouse a crime. Does a person really expect to go to jail for up to twelve months because the sex got a little rougher than expected one time? Or because she put her hand on her husband's shoulder to keep him from walking away while she's "talking to" him? Those would both be violations under paragraph 1.
The simple cure for the opinion in White's case is to specify that a person is not guilty of any crime at all for domestic assault, and that domestic battery requires a showing of actual application of physical force AND violence. That would obviate the need for any inclusion of language about malicious wounding, caustic substances, fire, etc.
