does Taylor's holding, that Oklahoma's offense of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon meets the force standard in the elements clause (force capable of causing physical pain or injury), incorrectly apply Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), which held that an overbroad offense cannot be divided during categorical analysis if the overbroad terms consist of means, where the Oklahoma offense can be committed by lightly touching another person with a sword cane, loaded cane, or hand chain?

Does Taylor's holding that Oklahoma's offense of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon meets the force standard in the elements clause incorrectly apply Mathis v. United States?