People Under Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Retain Gun Rights

[Photon Guy]

People who have domestic violence restraining orders against them can't be stripped of their gun rights as it's been ruled in a federal court. I do know that PA is a state where if somebody files a restraining order against you you're stripped of your gun rights. With this new ruling at a federal level does this mean that PA will no longer be such a state?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/app...rs-owning-guns

[Delkal]

People who have domestic violence restraining orders against them can't be stripped of their gun rights as it's been ruled in a federal court. I do know that PA is a state where if somebody files a restraining order against you you're stripped of your gun rights. With this new ruling at a federal level does this mean that PA will no longer be such a state?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/app...rs-owning-guns

Pa is not under the 5th circuit court of appeals jurisdiction. So AFAIK this means nothing.

I am sure someone will be along shortly if I am wrong.

[GunLawyer001]

The prohibition is Federal, as is the "domestic violence" prohibitor:

(8) who is subject to a court order that*
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The 5th Circuit gets overturned a lot, but their reasoning is sound, regarding rights being stripped away with very little due process. Doesn't affect us yet.

[ImminentDanger]

Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law
By Adam Beam - Associated Press - Updated: 9:24 p.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2023
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...iolence-gun-l/

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the government can't stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns - the latest domino to fall after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority set new standards for reviewing the nation's gun laws.

Police in Texas found a rifle and a pistol at the home of a man who was the subject of a civil protective order that banned him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also banned him from having guns.

A federal grand jury indicted the man, who pled guilty. He later challenged his indictment, arguing the law that prevented him from owning a gun was unconstitutional. At first, a federal appeals court ruled against him, saying that it was more important for society to keep guns out of the hands of people accused of domestic violence than it was to protect a person's individual right to own a gun.

But then last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new ruling in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment by saying the government had to justify gun control laws by showing they are "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

The appeals court withdrew its original decision and on Thursday decided to vacate the man's conviction and ruled the federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns was unconstitutional.

Specifically, the court ruled that the federal law was an "outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted" - borrowing a quote from the Bruen decision.

The decision came from a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Cory Wilson, James Ho and Edith Jones. Wilson and Ho were nominated by former Republican President Donald Trump, while Jones was nominated by former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Justice Department Thursday night issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland following the decision: "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."

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."

Thursday"s ruling demonstrates the far-reaching impacts of the Bruen decision. In California, the decision has prompted lawmakers to overhaul their law regarding permits to carry concealed weapons.

Wednesday, Newsom endorsed a bill in the state Legislature that would ban people from carrying concealed guns in nearly all public places, with an exception for churches and businesses who put up a sign saying guns are OK.

(Bolding is mine)

Far too many laws treat law-abiding citizens as though they were criminals - or make criminals unnecessarily of those who wish to be constitution-abiding.

Hopefully the impact of the Bruen ruling will affect more & more lower court rulings. I'm sure the appeals with take several years to process before it's full impact can be seen in average circumstances.


Update:

Garland goes on offense to protect firearms ban appeals court ruled unconstitutional
by Kaelan Deese - February 03, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...constitutional

Opinion

Attorney General Merrick Garland went on the offensive Thursday after an appeals court ruled the government can't stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms, vowing to "seek further review" of the decision.

In a unanimous opinion by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the ruling held that last year's landmark Supreme Court decision, known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, set a new test for interpreting the Second Amendment by requiring the government to justify gun control laws by showing they are *consistent with the Nation*s historical tradition of firearm regulation."

*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," Garland wrote in a statement after the 5th Circuit decision, implying the court doesn't have the ability to override a congressional statute.

"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," Garland added.

The appeals court vacated the conviction of Zackey Rahimi, who previously pleaded guilty to possessing firearms while under a civil protective order that banned him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child and also banned him from having guns.

Three Republican-appointed judges on the panel maintain that the federal law Rahimi was found in violation of was an *outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted," referring to a quote from the Bruen decision last summer, in which the 6-3 conservative supermajority on the high court struck down New York's strict concealed carry permit regime.

Based in New Orleans, the 5th Circuit's decision affects Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.

Thursday's 5th Circuit decision also drew the ire of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), who released a statement lambasting the Supreme Court's recent updates to firearms precedent.

*This is what the ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court wants. It*s happening, and it*s happening right now,* said Newsom, who has recently endorsed stricter gun control after a string of mass shootings in the Golden State.

Garland's statement signaled the government might appeal the decision in the near future.

Jacob Charles, a Second Amendment law expert at Pepperdine Caruso Law, indicated on Thursday that the Supreme Court would likely weigh in on the 5th Circuit decision at some point.

"Looks like we're going to get a new Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment sooner rather than later because this new Fifth Circuit ruling strikes down the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by those subject to DV restraining orders," Charles tweeted.

...

[Photon Guy]

Here is a video on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO9h1w_dQAE

[PickingPA]

The prohibition is Federal, as is the "domestic violence" prohibitor:

(8) who is subject to a court order that*
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The 5th Circuit gets overturned a lot, but their reasoning is sound, regarding rights being stripped away with very little due process. Doesn't affect us yet.

If upheld, this precedent could be expanded to prevent red flag laws in general, correct?

[Ilikebuckets]

However you feel about Trump, two of the 3 judges ruling on this were appointed by him.

A turbulent time for the 2nd right now is. Seems like there are victories and setbacks on a daily basis. Glad there are rulings like this to offset rulings like braces. Taking away Constitutional rights without extensive due process and treating the 2nd as an afterthought should never be the norm. Hopefully potential victims of truly violent domestic abusers take advantage of the 2nd to protect themselves.

And hopefully braces quickly follow suit and the recent AFT ruling is struck down.

[ExFlyinguy]

[Ilikebuckets]

This is going to the Supreme Court

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...lence-gun-case

[Ilikebuckets]

This is going to the Supreme Court

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...lence-gun-case

Been watching a couple of videos by lawyers on YouTube. They do not seem to like that this was taken up by the Supreme Court and think the particulars of the case may cause them to rule in favor of the government. they seem to think this case could cause some problems with the Bruen decisions. Videos below if you want to understand their reasons why this case being heard could be a bad thing in the long run.




Second video. I could only embed one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgtmLRHbsGQ