People Under Domestic Violence Orders Can Own Guns -U.S. Appeals Court Rules (5th Circuit/Zackey Rahimi)

[mauserme]

People under domestic violence orders can own guns -U.S. appeals court rules

By Jonathan Stempel
 

Feb 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms.

...

 

In Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Cory Wilson said banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms "embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society."

 

But the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, said the Bruen ruling made such a consideration irrelevant, and that from a historical perspective the ban was "an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."

...

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in a written statement disagreed with the 5th Circuit's ruling and said the Biden administration would appeal.

...

 

The 5th Circuit is based in New Orleans, and its decision applies in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

 

It had upheld the federal law last June 8, just over two weeks before the Bruen decision, but withdrew its opinion and ordered additional briefing.

 

 

 

[Flynn]

You may want to break away and bring the replies below over to this dedicated thread

 

https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80672-links-to-post-nysrpa-v-bruen-court-rulings/&do=findComment&comment=1364874

 

[Flynn]

MSM has picked up on this case and the anti-gunner are literally losing it all over social media and the news comment sections under the articles!

[mauserme]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:17 PM, Flynn said:

You may want to break away and bring the replies below over to this dedicated thread

 

https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80672-links-to-post-nysrpa-v-bruen-court-rulings/&do=findComment&comment=1364874

 

 

That thread is actually dedicated to collecting "Links to Post NYSRPA v Bruen Court Rulings".

 

 

[cybermgk]

If youread the decision, this WILL be used as a precedent to go after Red Flag laws.  It essentially, says, stripping 2 A rights without actual due process AND proving the person is an actual danger via actions

 

And Garland ole pal "U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in a written statement disagreed with the 5th Circuit's ruling and said the Biden administration would appeal."  PLEASE make it nation wide, appeal.

[BobPistol]

Wasn't there a small wrinkle in this case?

The plaintiff's restraining order was slapped on him without any due process?   That's why it was struck down?

 

The MSM is making it seem like all restraining orders - including abusers and psychopath ex's - who had their day in court for the restraining order and due process satisfied - can still own guns. 

[davel501]

On 2/3/2023 at 9:03 AM, BobPistol said:

Wasn't there a small wrinkle in this case?

The plaintiff's restraining order was slapped on him without any due process?   That's why it was struck down?

 

The MSM is making it seem like all restraining orders - including abusers and psychopath ex's - who had their day in court for the restraining order and due process satisfied - can still own guns. 

 

Quote

Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington, Texas. On December 1, after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant. Officers in the Arlington Police Department identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and obtained a warrant to search his home.  Officers executed the warrant and found a rifle and a pistol.  Rahimi admitted that he possessed the firearms.    He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, by a Texas state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. The protective order restrained him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child.  The order also expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm.

 

Pretty much the worst case to go to court with that you can think of but after Bruen they were forced to reconsider and vacate the charges related to the order of protection. 

[BobPistol]

Yeah, outside of the restraining order the guy was definitely a bad guy.

 

But what was the details of the protective order?

Did he actually show up in the case - had due process?

 

Or was this one that was slapped on him without his input?

[Tvandermyde]

the anti-gunners should be wringing their hands over their precious red flag laws and such. 

 

This should give the clear and present danger case a lot of legs

[davel501]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:35 AM, BobPistol said:

Yeah, outside of the restraining order the guy was definitely a bad guy.

 

But what was the details of the protective order?

Did he actually show up in the case - had due process?

 

Or was this one that was slapped on him without his input?

 

It was a civil protective order. He was not found guilty of any crime. It might be easier to read the opinion USA v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001 (5th Cir. 2023) :: Justia

[Smallbore]

How often does a restraining order protect the innocent from a violent bad person. I suspect never. I have sympathy for the abused but to deny a basic right without due cause is tyranny but the government. I do not see a problem with immediate orders keeping the two dueling parties separated. If there was or is violence existing criminal law should handle it.

There are many defensive tools for the weaker sex the government is immoral in denying.

[Flynn]

On 2/3/2023 at 6:34 AM, mauserme said:

 

That thread is actually dedicated to collecting "Links to Post NYSRPA v Bruen Court Rulings".

 

That is why I suggested bringing the replies to this case over here, instead of leaving them there.

[yurimodin]

I wonder if they are going to have to change the 4473 forms now?.........

 

Now they need fix the 2A cannabis discrimination. 

[BobPistol]

On 2/3/2023 at 10:15 AM, davel501 said:

 

It was a civil protective order. He was not found guilty of any crime. It might be easier to read the opinion USA v. Rahimi, No. 21-11001 (5th Cir. 2023) :: Justia

I missed the part whether the protective order had sufficient due process.   All it mentioned was that there was one in place. 

 

But the case didn't seem to deal with this.     

The case was broader.

 

If the government declares you dangerous - and then yanks your 2A rights - that's unconstitutional - per this ruling - in the case of those who have a restraining order against you - regardless of how that restraining order was imposed - with or without due process.

 

This could be used to overturn mental illness prohibitions as well - same reasoning - government says you're dangerous due to mental illness.

 

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, February 2, 2023

Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding United States v. Rahimi

The Justice Department tonight issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Rahimi.

“Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”

[davel501]

On 2/3/2023 at 1:06 PM, BobPistol said:

I missed the part whether the protective order had sufficient due process.   All it mentioned was that there was one in place. 

 

But the case didn't seem to deal with this.     

The case was broader.

 

If the government declares you dangerous - and then yanks your 2A rights - that's unconstitutional - per this ruling - in the case of those who have a restraining order against you - regardless of how that restraining order was imposed - with or without due process.

 

This could be used to overturn mental illness prohibitions as well - same reasoning - government says you're dangerous due to mental illness.

 

 

 

Quote

Distilled to its essence, the provision operates to deprive an individual of his right to keep and bear arms once a court finds, after notice and a hearing, that the individual poses a “credible threat” to an intimate partner or her child and enters a restraining order to that effect. The covered individual forfeits his Second Amendment right for the duration of the court’s order. This is so even when the individual has not been criminally convicted of any offense and when the underlying proceeding is merely civil in nature.

 

The concurrence at the end is most telling of this new paradigm. As I read it, it says if someone is that dangerous then they should be locked up pending trial.

 

The pendulum has really swung here though. We've gone from trying to keep guns out of the hands of "bad people" at the risk of abuse leading to trampled rights of the innocent to protecting the rights of the unconvicted at the risk of the wrong people being able to legally hold onto their firearms. You could argue that the bad people will still get firearms no matter what the law says because, well, they do. We are going to see someone that everyone in their life knows shouldn't have firearms but was never convicted of a crime do something horrendous and people will lose their minds. Everyone loves pre-crime until they lose rights for something they never did.

[yurimodin]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:13 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, February 2, 2023

Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding United States v. Rahimi

The Justice Department tonight issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Rahimi.

“Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”

The best thing Turtle McConnell did for America was keeping that scum Garland off of SCOTUS.

[Flynn]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:13 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, February 2, 2023

Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding United States v. Rahimi

The Justice Department tonight issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Rahimi.

“Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”

 

And to think this guy who has no respect for Supreme Court precendent, or the text, history and tradition of the enumerated right in the 2nd and also has no respect for a Federal Appeals court ruling either, was nominated to sit on the Supreme Court all while believing and stating that what "Congress determined" 30 years ago is the supreme law in this country!  Utterly despicable!  He needs to be impeached and removed!
 

Edited February 3, 2023 at 08:25 PM by Flynn

[Rangerdeepv]

Not a big fan of McConnell but he did the country right by not allowing this hack know as Merrick Garland onto the bench in SCOTUS. This guy is really a full blown leftocrat bordering on extremist.

[springfield shooter]

Of the sixteen active judges on the 5th Circuit, twelve were appointed by Republicans. Six of the twelve by Donald Trump. I don't think AG Garland is looking at great odds on appeal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

[Flynn]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:23 PM, springfield shooter said:

Of the sixteen active judges on the 5th Circuit, twelve were appointed by Republicans. Six of the twelve by Donald Trump. I don't think AG Garland is looking at great odds on appeal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

 

Agree, on a full appeal en banc hearing as well as the Supreme Court after being ignored in Heller, likely isn't going to be very happy about being ignored in Bruen, especially by a guy that 'should' know better.

Edited February 3, 2023 at 09:44 PM by Flynn

[yurimodin]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:23 PM, springfield shooter said:

Of the sixteen active judges on the 5th Circuit, twelve were appointed by Republicans. Six of the twelve by Donald Trump. I don't think AG Garland is looking at great odds on appeal.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

Its sad that we are at a point of having to worry about who appointed these supposedly "impartial" judges.

[Colt guy]

Garland graduated from my high school. I came in as he was graduating. Always a liberal high school even back then. 

[mab22]

Looks like Garland is going to fast track the appeal to the SCOTUS. 

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-doj-asks-supreme-court-fast-track-case-could-reinstate-federal-gun-ban

Of course one of our senators had to whine about Bruen.

 

Quote

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on March 15 that the Bruen ruling offers little guidance to lower courts on interpreting the decision, as Courthouse News Service reported.

 

[Upholder]

I think he meant to say "the Bruen ruling offers guidance to lower courts that I don't like because it's devastating to my goals."

[JTHunter]

On 3/20/2023 at 9:10 AM, Upholder said:

I think he meant to say "the Bruen ruling offers guidance to lower courts that I don't like because it's devastating to my goals."

 

Definitely !! 😆

[SiliconSorcerer]

This is great news for criminals, seems like Illinois not only doesn't want to put anyone in jail they also are working on HB 2045 to let current inmates out. 

[Smallbore]

Either one respects the value of "innocent until proven guilty" by "due process" or one does not. Liberty for all or for none. Your choice.

[JTHunter]

With regards to the last two posts, how many times over the years have gun owners been "told" (harangued, badgered, chastised, and berated) that, to allow us to carry our weapons for our defense, would be like the "wild west" (or at least Hollyweird's version) with "blood in the streets"?

Well, if these heinous and reprehensible bills, acts, regulations, come to pass, that may turn out to be true as nobody will be safe.