Justice Department asks Supreme Court to overturn domestic violence gun ruling: people under a domestic violence restraining order retain their guns

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,656
Likes
19,918
Feedback: 121 / 0 / 0

Appeals court said people under a domestic violence restraining order retain their 2nd Amendment rights​

The Department of Justice has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of a lower court decision that struck down a federal law banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that people under domestic violence restraining orders retain their constitutional right to own firearms, finding that the federal law prohibiting them from doing so was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had promised to seek further review of the 5th Circuit's decision. In the petition, the Justice Department (DOJ) argues there is a legal tradition in the U.S. and England of disarming people who have posed a danger to the community or threatened to hurt others.

Continues...
 
Last edited:
The problem is - anyone can get a domestic violence restraining order on anyone. It is as easy as a woman getting angry and you are f*cked.

If I was a judge and hear that England argument, I would laugh and let the person know he is in the wrong country, with an English accent "you are in the wrong country, mate. Get out of my court".
 
1) there is a federal law saying people with a RO can’t have guns.

2) a fifth circus court ruled that law unconstitutional under Bruen: people people with a RO against them can keep their guns.

3) US justice department wants SCOTUS to undo (2), above.
Better thank you
 

Appeals court said people under a domestic violence restraining order retain their 2nd Amendment rights​

The Department of Justice has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of a lower court decision that struck down a federal law banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that people under domestic violence restraining orders retain their constitutional right to own firearms, finding that the federal law prohibiting them from doing so was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had promised to seek further review of the 5th Circuit's decision. In the petition, the Justice Department (DOJ) argues there is a legal tradition in the U.S. and England of disarming people who have posed a danger to the community or threatened to hurt others.

Continues...
Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court
 
Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court
Would you agree that restraining orders are handed out like candy at the holiday parade these days? That many RO's are requested in spite and the court allows it because 'gunz'.

Also, when you have a collection, of any size, why do they need to take scopes, magazines, ammunition and anything else that is loosely related to firearms?

RO's are a broken system. Period.
 
Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court
Under what logic?
You do realize that restraining orders are ex parte, right?
So you are advocating that a third party is allowed to extinguish your rights without due process. Think about that.
 
Under what logic?
You do realize that restraining orders are ex parte, right?
So you are advocating that a third party is allowed to extinguish your rights without due process. Think about that.
Under the logic that he's still Woodsy, and loved him some extrajudicial punishment. He'll happily tune the guy up while taking the guns, if he thinks he needs the lesson.
 
Filing a false RO should be a 10 year minimum felony, No plea out. If woman files a false RO during a divorce to get any kind of advantage she should lose all assets and custody and her and HER LAWYER should be charged with a 10 year minimum felony.

EDIT- the woman shouldn’t just lose custody…she should lose her parental rights! Gone! See-ya! Go trap another dude and get knocked up. Actually scratch that….she should be sterilized.
 
Last edited:
Filing a false RO should be a 10 year minimum felony, No plea out. If woman files a false RO during a divorce to get any kind of advantage she should lose all assets and custody and her and her lawyer should be charged with a 10 year minimum felony.
Unfortunately only good for 1 year

But a 1 year residence in the gray bar would likely deter most people
 
The entire idea of a DV RO being disabling violates due process.
Concur
If there is objective evidence of battery then arrest, charge and prosecute.
Otherwise it's a he said, she said and the government needs to stay out of it.

I believe there should be mandatory charges for false reports for things like DV ROs and sexual assault claims. If the claim is found to be vindictive the response should be a mandatory minimum of the median punishment for the falsely claimed charge.
 
Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court
LOL ...

1. Anyone can get a restraining order on you and there are little to no consequences to them.

2. I think it is cute you think the loss of your guns is temporary. Good luck dealing with a warehouse when they took 30 guns and want $200/gun to get them back.
 
The issue with ROs is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. In the case of real danger, then access to weapons needs to be removed. However in the case of a bogus RO there is abuse of the system and rarely any recourse for that. If you are gubmint what do you do? Deny an RO and then have a homicide, or hand them out like candy and do your best to prevent homicide. Just in the other F*ck around and find out thread you see a perfect example.

What needs reform is the process by which these are vetted and ultimately resolved. There is no priority to get people back their rights and seek justice.
 
LOL ...

1. Anyone can get a restraining order on you and there are little to no consequences to them.

2. I think it is cute you think the loss of your guns is temporary. Good luck dealing with a warehouse when they took 30 guns and want $200/gun to get them back.

Or a year or two of garbage and thousands in attorneys fees to make it go away….and a lifetime record stain in mass.
 
I had this debate with my liberal BIL years ago. Tols him the restraining order /domestic violence system lacks due process. He said it is done thru due process. I said I'm sorry but a sketchy ex girlfriend saying "he threatened me".....and a judge saying "I believe you" is NOT due process.
 
Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court
Omg do you even know what due process is? Your saying that it's proper for the government to take away your rights BEFORE the trial? Your NOT a friend to freedom at all if you believe this.
 

Appeals court said people under a domestic violence restraining order retain their 2nd Amendment rights​

The Department of Justice has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of a lower court decision that struck down a federal law banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that people under domestic violence restraining orders retain their constitutional right to own firearms, finding that the federal law prohibiting them from doing so was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had promised to seek further review of the 5th Circuit's decision. In the petition, the Justice Department (DOJ) argues there is a legal tradition in the U.S. and England of disarming people who have posed a danger to the community or threatened to hurt others.

Continues...

I am very happy with the Bruen opinion but the DOJ might be able to make this one stick. There is a history of taking weapons away from dangerous people. I just don't know if it will withstand the legal standard needed to do so. Def get the popcorn for this one.
 
Can’t agree with this. If you are under a restraining order you should temporarily lose access to firearm until you have your day in court

Wow…. I believe that domestic violence and animal cruelty are really good indicators of future violence; and should be considered strongly when evaluating the danger someone poses is to public safety…. and I think your position on this is bonkers.

If someone is a threat, arrest them. Then convict them. Then exact punishment or remedy.

But to confiscate guns (and all accessories) and leave the person loose, thinking that they’re not a threat anymore is insanity.
 
Last edited:
Omg do you even know what due process is? Your saying that it's proper for the government to take away your rights BEFORE the trial? Your NOT a friend to freedom at all if you believe this.
I don’t think he understands due process in regards to guns. You don’t get your day in court, they take your shit first.
 
Back
Top Bottom