Federal 5th circuit court of appeals strikes down 922; federal domestic violence restraining order gun ban

[Hoover]

I’ll post it in a new thread because it’s a significant case. Feds have few options to reverse this. This, if not appealed or upheld, strikes it down nationwide. It won’t strike down state laws but this case can be used in arguments against those.

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

New linsky bill t9 ban carry in “sensitive “ places. Basically a ripoff of NY and NJ. bans carry pretty much everywhere https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2808 The rep from Amherst has a bill with a 36% tax on gun and ammo to fun some health fund.

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[appraiser]

It kills Lautenburg? I thought we lost that battle of the supreme Court not too long ago I believe the case was a hunter from Maine and he was not the poster boy that was going to get it overturned

 

[drgrant]

It kills Lautenburg? I thought we lost that battle of the supreme Court not too long ago I believe the case was a hunter from Maine and he was not the poster boy that was going to get it overturned

I dont call a lautenberg issue ever making it to the supreme court. It's possible they denied a case cert but that is not case law. that is just "we think your case sucks, bye" a cert denial doesnt mean the issue cant be revisited later. (there probably have been dozens of cert denials on things like Roe, etc)

 

[Palladin]

In my best Donald Trump voice, " huge just huge!"

 

[Hoover]

I dont call a lautenberg issue ever making it to the supreme court. It's possible they denied a case cert but that is not case law. that is just "we think your case sucks, bye" a cert denial doesnt mean the issue cant be revisited later. (there probably have been dozens of cert denials on things like Roe, etc)

Not taking a case, aka denying cert, can mean anything and there’s nothing you can take from it as an indication of how SCOTUS feels. I think the denials of 2A cases between McDonald and the NYSRPA vs case a year or two before bruen which was on NYCs gun laws which they changed after SCOTUS took it which mooted the issue) were because the 4 conservatives didn’t trust Kennedy in that 5-4 court. Once Kennedy was gone and Barrett replaced Ginsburg , the 4 conservatives knew they had the votes so they took the NYSRPA and GVRd some others. That’s just a guess those because SCOTUS doesn’t say why they turn down a case and rarely are there dissents made public, so you don’t even know what the vote was.

Accepting a case tells more. Obviously the court agreed with the lower court, they could just deny and move on. By taking a case they either want to resolve a circuit split, there’s a specific legal issue they want to address or they disagree with the lower court ruling.

 

[Waher]

I'm wondering if this might influence the cases challenging the lifetime prohibition for non-violent felonies.

 

[terraformer]

I’ll post it in a new thread because it’s a significant case. Feds have few options to reverse this. This, if not appealed or upheld, strikes it down nationwide. It won’t strike down state laws but this case can be used in arguments against those.

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

New linsky bill t9 ban carry in “sensitive “ places. Basically a ripoff of NY and NJ. bans carry pretty much everywhere https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD2808 The rep from Amherst has a bill with a 36% tax on gun and ammo to fun some health fund.

www.northeastshooters.com

No, this has no force of law outside of the fifth circuit. This does nothing nationally. It's a criminal case, and influential but not precedent outside of that circuit. And there is an en-banc that can intervene, and I would suspect they will. §922(g)(1) will ultimately fall (though not it, but the process by which one finds themselves under it) not in this context. There is analogue (as the decision points out) that disarming people shown to be dangerous existed. The process by which we do that is bereft of any process protections. That's how this gets fixed. I expect the full circuit en banc will overrule this decision. And it's a shame, because this decision correctly lays waste to much of the way gun banners are screwing with us, most notably who "gets protection" of the second amendment.

 

[terraformer]

No, this has no force of law outside of the fifth circuit. This does nothing nationally. It's a criminal case, and influential but not precedent outside of that circuit. And there is an en-banc that can intervene, and I would suspect they will. §922(g)(1) will ultimately fall (though not it, but the process by which one finds themselves under it) not in this context. There is analogue (as the decision points out) that disarming people shown to be dangerous existed. The process by which we do that is bereft of any process protections. That's how this gets fixed. I expect the full circuit en banc will overrule this decision. And it's a shame, because this decision correctly lays waste to much of the way gun banners are screwing with us, most notably who "gets protection" of the second amendment.

PS: The concurrence is more in line with my thinking and what I posted above. A narrower challenge to eliminate lifetime DROs, etc; would be more apt. And to be honest, it's really clear that DROs end run due process by claiming someone committed a crime but not actually convicting them.

Now, that said, if the DRO was as hard to get as a conviction, this raises the issue of whether or not the DRO is even worth it. That may actually justify saying the DROs should not exist and that instead just convict the person of the crime they were claimed to have committed that justified the DRO. But I am more apt to believe that they will keep the DROs and make them much harder to get. Similar to the process that exists for crazy people to lose their rights (not the process in MA, which is BS and too minimal).

 

[Waher]

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicyfoundation/pages/3970/attachments/original/1675361904/United_States_v_Rahimi_Opinion.pdf

 

[Oley]

No, this has no force of law outside of the fifth circuit. This does nothing nationally. It's a criminal case, and influential but not precedent outside of that circuit. And there is an en-banc that can intervene, and I would suspect they will. §922(g)(1) will ultimately fall (though not it, but the process by which one finds themselves under it) not in this context. There is analogue (as the decision points out) that disarming people shown to be dangerous existed. The process by which we do that is bereft of any process protections. That's how this gets fixed. I expect the full circuit en banc will overrule this decision. And it's a shame, because this decision correctly lays waste to much of the way gun banners are screwing with us, most notably who "gets protection" of the second amendment.

Agree. I think the history lesson provided in the opinion is likely to be one of the most important takeaways. Our problems as a society are rarely new, they just take new forms. The founders had reasons for their decisions and responses that are still relevant today, beyond simply ‘don’t trust the government.’ I think it’s important to us as a community to be able to articulate those issues to those beyond our community. The public has heard ‘b/c screw the govt’ over and over.

 

[MaverickNH]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/03/ruling-guns-domestic-offenders-worse/

I dunno if that’s how it’s done at other papers, but when an Associate Editor of WaPo writes a piece it’s an Opinion rather than an Editorial? In any case, the author appears to subscribe to the notion that, better 10 innocent men be disarmed than one guilty man be allowed to remain armed.

"Ho’s proposed solution isn’t to let domestic abusers off the hook — it’s prosecuting them to the max. “Those who commit or criminally threaten domestic violence have already demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the rights of others and the rule of law,” he wrote. “So merely enacting laws that tell them to disarm is a woefully inadequate solution. Abusers must be detained, prosecuted, and incarcerated.”

Certainly, some situations call for prosecution, and perhaps even pretrial detention. But Congress made an additional determination: that it is sometimes necessary to protect potential victims through civil proceedings. The Ho opinion, said Eric Tirschwell, director of litigation for Everytown, “just seems to be this judge stretching for anything he can find to try to suggest there are problems with using the civil justice system to protect victims of domestic violence. He seems to think the only proper remedy for dealing with threats of domestic violence is criminal prosecution, without any appreciation for the complexities that make that not a viable solution.”

 

[KBCraig]

Ho expanded his opinion.

Judge James Ho's Revised Concurrence in the Second Amendment / Restraining Order Case

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit released an updated version of its opinion in U.S. v. Rahimi, which held that people can't...

reason.com

 

[appraiser]

I'm really hoping this will lead to the eventual ruling that Lautenberg is illegal and restore a gun rights to a whole bunch of guys that have it stuffed up their asses for almost 30 years now.

"yes or no have you stopped beating your wife"