5th Cir; US v Rahimi - restraining order firearms prohibition violates 2A

[Librarian]

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...mi_Opinion.pdf

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.

[abinsinia]

The 5th circuit is carving up the 2a federal restrictions like a turkey.

[SkyHawk]

wow - too much winning!

[California_Deplorable]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/state...tates-v-rahimi

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.”

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by California_Deplorable

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/state...tates-v-rahimi

Dear Mr AG, in case you haven't noticed 30 years ago is way after the founding! Furthermore, in case you also failed to notice, support for the 5th Circuit's opinion came from now justices Barrett and Kavanaugh.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law

...Thursday's ruling overturned the federal law and is not likely to impact similar state laws, including one in California. Still, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called the judges who issued the ruling “zealots” who are “hellbent on a deranged vision of guns for all, leaving government powerless to protect its people.”

“This is what the ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court wants. It's happening, and it's happening right now,” Newsom said. “Wake up America — this assault on our safety will only accelerate.”

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the problem with laws like the one the federal appeals court struck down is that they are too broad and don't take into account the details of each case.

He offered as an example a client of his whose neighbor filed a restraining order against them because they had pointed a security camera on their property.

“They lost their gun rights,” he said. “When they do a blanket prohibition without considering individualized circumstances, they shoot the dogs with the wolves.”...

Governor Newsom on Fifth Circuit Court Ruling Allowing Domestic Violence Abusers to Possess Guns

Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the federal law that prohibits those with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns:

“Now, a federal appeals court has ruled domestic abusers have the right to carry firearms. Where is the line? Who’s next?

“Judge Cory Wilson, Judge James Ho, and Judge Edith Jones.

“These three zealots are hellbent on a deranged vision of guns for all, leaving government powerless to protect its people. This is what the ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court wants. It’s happening, and it’s happening right now.

“Wake up, America – this assault on our safety will only accelerate. This is serious – and it’s coming to California. We are probably only weeks away from another activist judge, Judge Roger Benitez, striking down California’s bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. California will continue to fight against these extremist judges to protect our residents’ right to be free from gun violence.”

[BAJ475]

From TrappedinCalifornia's post above.
“These three zealots are hellbent on a deranged vision of guns for all, leaving government powerless to protect its people. This is what the ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court wants. It’s happening, and it’s happening right now," Newsom said. A "deranged vision of guns for all," seems like a strange way to describe the Second Amendment, but it shows his true Marxist colors.

Newsom also said: “Wake up, America – this assault on our safety will only accelerate. This is serious – and it’s coming to California. We are probably only weeks away from another activist judge, Judge Roger Benitez, striking down California’s bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. California will continue to fight against these extremist judges to protect our residents’ right to be free from gun violence.” Well, I for one surely hope it is coming to California and the sooner the better!

[CurlyDave]

Does this mean what I think it does? With the 5CA making such a favorable decision if another circuit disagrees, won't that be a circuit split? And wouldn't that invite the SC to look into it?

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by CurlyDave

Does this mean what I think it does? With the 5CA making such a favorable decision if another circuit disagrees, won't that be a circuit split? And wouldn't that invite the SC to look into it?

Given that this is reversing rather long-term statutory and case law? Add that the feds are going to ask for cert?

I think the odds are good that SCOTUS grants cert in this case even without a new split.

And then a number of states are going to be in legal battles. . .

[ajb78]

Originally Posted by OleCuss

Given that this is reversing rather long-term statutory and case law? Add that the feds are going to ask for cert?

I think the odds are good that SCOTUS grants cert in this case even without a new split.

And then a number of states are going to be in legal battles. . .

I believe this decision was from a 3 Judge panel, won't the feds have to petition the 5th Circuit for an En Banc hearing first?

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by ajb78

I believe this decision was from a 3 Judge panel, won't the feds have to petition the 5th Circuit for an En Banc hearing first?

I don't think they have to request en banc. They may do that if they think that the bigger panel will rule in their favor, but they don't have to.

[sirgrumps]

Originally Posted by ajb78

I believe this decision was from a 3 Judge panel, won't the feds have to petition the 5th Circuit for an En Banc hearing first?

Most of the other Circuits, other than the 9th, tend to NOT grant En Banc hearings, especially on 2A issues.

And the 5th CA is very 2A friendly.

I really like how Judge James Ho specifically mentioned that the 2A will not longer be treated as a 2nd class Constitutional Right.

[Drivedabizness]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Dear Mr AG, in case you haven't noticed 30 years ago is way after the founding! Furthermore, in case you also failed to notice, support for the 5th Circuit's opinion came from now justices Barrett and Kavanaugh.

More proof positive that, for all his faults, Cocaine Mitch was spot-on to scotch the Garland SCOTUS nomination.

Imagine this complete fraud as an Associate Justice.

[gobler]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

wow - too much winning!

Not until every anti gun law is repealed..

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[OleCuss]

Here's a discussion of the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1lGhz2Qaro

I think they are pretty smart attorneys and I tend to find their discussions worthwhile.

No surprise that the "Armed Attorneys" like the decision by the 5th Circuit panel.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by California_Deplorable

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/state...tates-v-rahimi

He is flat out wrong.
To receive a restraining order is often times very easy and typically without the knowledge or defense of the person to which the order is place.
And for this we would strip a person of their rights?
Do we do this with the 1st amendment?
There certainly are times when during emotional domestic disputes people take out their anger through online posts that cause harm to others, and yet there is no social media restraining order in such a case.

I am of the opinion that in order to legally strip a person of their rights the issue must first be fully adjudicated through a court of law and the person shall be found either a convicted criminal or mentally defective.
The key here is fully adjudicated through a court, which has checks and balances, and a jury, the fourth branch of government.
Not the whims of a single judge without the proper time or resourses.

[gobler]

Originally Posted by EM2

He is flat out wrong.

To receive a restraining order is often times very easy and typically without the knowledge or defense of the person to which the order is place.

And for this we would strip a person of their rights?

Do we do this with the 1st amendment?

There certainly are times when during emotional domestic disputes people take out their anger through online posts that cause harm to others, and yet there is no social media restraining order in such a case.



I am of the opinion that in order to legally strip a person of their rights the issue must first be fully adjudicated through a court of law and the person shall be found either a convicted criminal or mentally defective.

The key here is fully adjudicated through a court, which has checks and balances, and a jury, the fourth branch of government.

Not the whims of a single judge without the proper time or resourses.

Here in Ca; as well as many states, the man automatically gets a TRO during a divorce. No way in Hell that should strip someone of their rights.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by gobler

Here in Ca; as well as many states, the man automatically gets a TRO during a divorce. No way in Hell that should strip someone of their rights.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

From the interwebs:
"Fifteen states require that abusers subject to a domestic violence protective order surrender specific firearms in their possession – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin – however, even the strength of these laws varies from state to state. In California, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Wisconsin courts are required to order those subject to domestic violence protective orders to surrender firearms, regardless of the circumstances leading to the order, while other states may require that certain conditions – like a court determination that the abuser may use or threaten to use a firearm against the victim, as is required in New York - be met prior to ordering the surrender of firearms. Finally, twelve states – Alaska, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont – and the District of Columbia state that courts may instruct abusers to surrender firearms upon the issuance of a protective order."

So you know where not to live if you want to avoid having your 2A rights abused by false allegations and it is no surprise that CA is not one of the places where you want to reside if you cherish your 2A rights.

[BobB35]

So I have 2 questions about this ruling.

1. This is against a federal code...how does that apply to state laws which do the same thing like in CA

2. What effect does this have on Red-Flag laws. In essence TROs were the original red flag orders, so all these pre-crime orders (red flag laws) should run afoul of the same issues.

Barring an adjudication of mental illness how are they going to square taking guns away from someone who has committed no crime, just because someone says they may be a danger?

[Fyathyrio]

1. It doesn't do anything without a lawsuit in CA against the state law.
2. None, see above.

It is an appeals court decision, so it can be pointed to in other circuit cases, and may even prove compelling.

[Fyathyrio]

1. It doesn't do anything without a lawsuit in CA against the state law.
2. None, see above.

It is an appeals court decision, so it can be pointed to in other circuit cases, and may even prove compelling.

[pacrat]

GOV HAIRGEL QUOTE;

“These three zealots are hellbent on a deranged vision of guns for all, leaving government powerless to protect its people.

Well ain't that a BIG STEAMING CROCK A CRAP?

Considering that, NOT ONCE was an Anti 2A law passed with actual "protection of people" as the true reason for passage.

It is only the "leaving government powerless" part of the quote that he fears.

The only people that anti 2Alaws protect. Are the criminals that our ruling DimRat Ruling Class in Excremento hold so dear.

[L84CABO]

This is pretty interesting. The 5th Circuit has rescinded their initial opinion and issued a new and updated...and even stronger...opinion. This may be due in anticipation of the US filing an appeal to the the decision and that the case may ultimately be bound for SCOTUS. Or it may be in anticipation of other Circuit Courts utilizing the precedent in their districts as well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwSpQ78OAt0

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a new, updated opinion in the U.S. v. Rahimi case declaring 18 USC 922(g)(8) to be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith breaks it down here including the concurrence of Judge James Ho.