Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on November 26, 2022, 11:28:37 PM
-
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/11/law-banning-gun-possession-due-to-restraining-order-is-unconstitutional/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– Federal District Judge David Counts in the Western District of Texas has ruled the controversial federal law banning gun possession by a person who has been served with a restraining order for domestic violence is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Judge Counts suggests the entire ban on the possession of firearms by people convicted of domestic violence may be unconstitutional. However, he stops short of that conclusion, ruling only on the precise case before him:
That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds that the Government did not prove that §922(g)(8) aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.
Just at the District level at this point. Hope this gets affirmed at a higher level.
-
Good.
-
Dudes that beat their wife/kids shouldn’t have their guns taken away, because they should be beaten by the rest of the family into submission. Taking the guns away should be mooted by their own death/serious injury.
-
Dudes that beat their wife/kids shouldn’t have their guns taken away, because they should be beaten by the rest of the family into submission. Taking the guns away should be mooted by their own death/serious injury.
On a similar note, "You can't beat a woman who shoots."
-
As an addendum we all know that no woman would ever be so vindictive as to file a false claim during a contentious divorce or break up.
-
On a similar note, "You can't beat a woman who shoots."
I always remember that the wife knows how to get into the gun safe.
-
As an addendum we all know that no woman would ever be so vindictive as to file a false claim during a contentious divorce or break up.
And that is the key point that some forget. An accusation alone should not mean you lose your rights.
-
I haven't found a download of the actual decision, but here's a link to the full text of the decision:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20221114c31
It reads well, and it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for pretty much everyone, at this point it's not binding precedent anywhere in the U.S.
It will be interesting to see if (and if so, how) the government will appeal it. I think they pretty much have to appeal it, or all those red flag laws we have always said were unconstitutional will become invalid because they're ... unconstitutional.
Of course, the same facts in a different court in a different District could lead to the opposite result. If/when that happens,m that's when the fun starts.
-
Fifth Circuit Panels Rules Ban on Gun Possession While Under a Restraining Order Fails the Bruen Test
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fifth-circuit-panels-rules-ban-on-gun-ownership-while-under-a-restraining-order-fails-the-bruen-test/
A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of Zachary Rahimi for possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order. That, however, was before the Bruen decision was handed down by the Supreme Court.
The panel then withdrew its opinion and requested more briefing in light of Bruen. Today, the panel unanimously reversed and vacated Rahimi’s conviction, ruling that the law banning possession of a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order fails the Bruen test. The panel ruled that, “The Government fails to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8)’s restriction of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
I believe this is a separate case from the OP. Good to see the ruling even if it is just the 3 judge panel. The Bruen ruling is having its effect.
-
Fifth Circuit Panels Rules Ban on Gun Possession While Under a Restraining Order Fails the Bruen Test
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fifth-circuit-panels-rules-ban-on-gun-ownership-while-under-a-restraining-order-fails-the-bruen-test/
I believe this is a separate case from the OP. Good to see the ruling even if it is just the 3 judge panel. The Bruen ruling is having its effect.
That WILL get reheard en banc and if affirmed appealed to SCOTUS.
-
If Bruen is applied honestly, almost no gun laws would survive. It sounds like this judge is attempting to do that.
So, I expect this decision to be overturned.
-
If Bruen is applied honestly, almost no gun laws would survive. It sounds like this judge is attempting to do that.
So, I expect this decision to be overturned.
The Fifth Circuit is the one who overturned the bump stock ban with the full panel of judges. Better chance than others.
-
https://www.ammoland.com/2022/11/law-banning-gun-possession-due-to-restraining-order-is-unconstitutional/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)
Just at the District level at this point. Hope this gets affirmed at a higher level.
This is a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. It is now binding within the Fifth Circuit.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23596606/5th-circuit-ruling-on-domestic-violence-restraining-order-gun-restriction.pdf
-
Hawkmoon said,
"It reads well, and it makes perfect sense. Unfortunately for pretty much everyone, at this point it's not binding precedent anywhere in the U.S."
Well, there's the possibility that the clean language will act as "moral suasion" for other courts. Not, of course, if a judge is brainlocked by his upbringing in an anti-gun locale "and screw the Constitution," but just in general.
Sometimes we forget that little things, while not definitive in themselves, act as a "bias" to the thinking of others. That's called "advertising."
Which works.
And the Lefties are very, very well aware of this fact.
Terry, 230RN