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

[Daniel]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/people-under-domestic-violence-orders-can-own-guns-us-appeals-court-rules-2023-02-02/
 

 

Quote

 

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.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court decision last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home.

That decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," and not simply advance an important government interest.

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

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

The court threw out the guilty plea and six-year prison sentence for Zackey Rahimi, who admitted to possessing guns found in his Kennedale, Texas, home after prosecutors said he participated in five shootings in Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021.

Rahimi had been under a restraining order since Feb. 2020, following his alleged assault of a former girlfriend.

The office of U.S. Attorney Leigha Simonton in Dallas, which prosecuted Rahimi, had no immediate comment.

A federal public defender representing Rahimi did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

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.

In a concurrence, Circuit Judge and Trump appointee James Ho said the nation's founders "firmly believed" in the government's role in protecting people from violence and the right of individuals to bear arms, and that these principles "are not inconsistent but entirely compatible with one another."

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Bill Berkrot

 

 

 

 

[Chucktshoes]

I expect the Lautenburg Amendment to fall for the same reasonings. Like most gun laws in this country.
I won’t pretend that this doesn’t elevate risk to some folks who find themselves in these situations. It would be ridiculous to do so. That said, it’s also not like those restraining orders actually did anything to stop folks who sought to do harm. They’re just pieces of paper after all. 
 

 

[Wheelgunner]

I've seen more than one instance where in divorce proceedings the agreed order or divorce decree included a "stay apart" provision with all the elements under 922g8, inadvertently (?) making ownership an offense for the husband - even though there was no adjudication of guilt of a crime.

Plenty of people who read about this Fifth Circuit decision will argue it's dangerous to vulnerable people.  Personally, I find it more dangerous for the state to have the option to suspend a citizen's civil rights via some abbreviated, summary process.

[Grunt67]

Orders of protection are a waste of paper. A misdemeanor. If you're going to kill someone , a felony , what's a bit more?

[Worriedman]

From the ruling:
The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), it is not. Zackey Rahimi levies a facial challenge to § 922(g)(8). The district court and a prior panel upheld the statute, applying this court’s pre-Bruen precedent. See United States v. Rahimi, No. 21-11011, 2022 WL 2070392 at *1 n.1 (5th Cir. June 8, 2022). Rahimi filed a petition for rehearing en banc; while the petition was pending, the Supreme Court decided Bruen. The prior panel withdrew its opinion and requested supplemental briefing on the impact of that case on this one. Considering the issue afresh, we conclude that Bruen requires us to re-evaluate our Second Amendment jurisprudence and that under Bruen, § 922(g)(8) fails to pass constitutional muster. We therefore reverse the district court’s ruling to the contrary and vacate Rahimi’s conviction.

The take away is that if it did not exist as a law regarding firearms and their possession in 1791, it does not apply today.

[Daniel]

On 2/5/2023 at 5:37 AM, Worriedman said:

The take away is that if it did not exist as a law regarding firearms and their possession in 1791, it does not apply today.

That was my reading also.