- Nov 24, 2005
"On November 10, Judge David Counts of the Western District of Texas issued an opinion in United States v. Perez-Gallan holding unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), the federal ban on possessing a firearm while subject to a court order that “restrains [the possessor] from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . . or child . . . , or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.”
...The judge also consulted pre-Bruen cases that performed historical analysis at “step one.” He concluded that these cases found that the protective-order ban and similar domestic-violence prohibitions were not longstanding and upheld the laws only under “step two,” the means-ends scrutiny step which Bruen rejected."
Here's the gun control advocate's way forward:
"It is difficult to square the historical analysis in Perez-Gallan with Bruen’s statement that “other cases implicating unprecedented societal concerns . . . may require a more nuanced approach.” ...Under Bruen, concluding that societal concern about the use of guns in domestic violence incidents is unprecedented should lead a court to apply a higher-generality analogical inquiry...there is an unprecedented appreciation in modern society that those who have committed domestic violence in the past (and are thus among the most likely to do so in the future) are dangerous when armed. That should be sufficient under Bruen to analogize modern domestic-violence-related gun restrictions to Founding-Era laws based on assessments of “dangerousness.”
Of course, every aspect of gun manufacture, distribution, ownership and use are now claimed to be part of a public health crisis and an existential threat to democracy as we know it. So, any and all gun laws would be "unprecedented social concerns."