SFC13557
NES Member
From Today's WSJ.
Didn't see this posted elsewhere.
"The Supreme Court said Friday it would decide whether people subject to domestic-violence protective orders have a Second Amendment right to be armed.
The new consideration of gun rights gives the court an opportunity to say more about the scope of the Second Amendment a year after it issued a blockbuster ruling that expanded gun rights and adopted a new legal approach that bases the constitutionality of weapons regulations on whether similar laws existed early in the nation’s history.
The case is one of a half-dozen the justices added to their docket before their summer break. The court will hear the cases in its next term that begins in October.
In the gun case, the Biden administration is appealing a ruling that threw out the conviction of an Arlington, Texas, man, Zackey Rahimi, for possessing firearms while under a domestic-violence restraining order. A federal law enacted in 1994 disarmed individuals whom courts have ordered to stop threatening an intimate partner after finding they pose a credible threat. Over the past year, lower courts, attempting to apply the Supreme Court’s guidance in its 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, have issued conflicting rulings on whether the 1994 law is constitutional.
Police in 2021 executed a warrant to search Rahimi’s home after suspecting his involvement in more than one shooting, finding a pistol, a rifle and ammunition, along with a copy of the restraining order against him. His ex-girlfriend obtained the two-year protection order in February 2020, alleging in an affidavit that Rahimi physically abused her, threatened to kill her while brandishing a gun and fired a gun at her vehicle while she tried to flee him. The order restrained him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child.
In February, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the domestic-abuser law violated the Second Amendment. The defendant, “while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among ‘the people’ entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees,” Judge Cory T. Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.
The Rahimi case could clarify when misconduct or dangerousness strips a citizen of Second Amendment rights.
The appeals court relied on Bruen’s holding that lower courts should judge the constitutionality of gun-control measures based on their similarity to historical firearm regulation from the country’s early years in the late 1700s and 1800s.
That high court ruling, which struck down New York’s century-old concealed handgun permitting requirements, reinvigorated challenges to federal gun-control provisions that make it illegal for certain classes of people to possess firearms.
In Rahimi’s case, the Fifth Circuit panel concluded the domestic-abuse gun law didn’t have adequate historical support.
In March, a California federal judge declared the same statute constitutional. Judges have also clashed on whether gun rights should be extended to marijuana users, people convicted of nonviolent crimes and defendants under felony indictment.
The Justice Department moved swiftly to get the Rahimi ruling before the Supreme Court. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in the government’s appeal said the Fifth Circuit had “overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals.”
The federal law under which Rahimi had been convicted addresses “a profound threat to public safety that was ignored or minimized for too much of our Nation’s history,” she wrote, warning that striking it down would threaten “grave consequences for the safety of victims of domestic violence, law-enforcement officers and the public.”
Most states have their own laws that make it a crime to possess firearms while under a domestic-violence restraining order, many of which require people placed under orders to relinquish their guns.
Rahimi faces state charges including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and he remains in custody, according to Tarrant County records. A felony conviction on the state charges would also disqualify him from gun ownership."
Didn't see this posted elsewhere.
Hearing of case to follow court’s blockbuster 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights
"The Supreme Court said Friday it would decide whether people subject to domestic-violence protective orders have a Second Amendment right to be armed.
The new consideration of gun rights gives the court an opportunity to say more about the scope of the Second Amendment a year after it issued a blockbuster ruling that expanded gun rights and adopted a new legal approach that bases the constitutionality of weapons regulations on whether similar laws existed early in the nation’s history.
The case is one of a half-dozen the justices added to their docket before their summer break. The court will hear the cases in its next term that begins in October.
In the gun case, the Biden administration is appealing a ruling that threw out the conviction of an Arlington, Texas, man, Zackey Rahimi, for possessing firearms while under a domestic-violence restraining order. A federal law enacted in 1994 disarmed individuals whom courts have ordered to stop threatening an intimate partner after finding they pose a credible threat. Over the past year, lower courts, attempting to apply the Supreme Court’s guidance in its 2022 decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, have issued conflicting rulings on whether the 1994 law is constitutional.
Police in 2021 executed a warrant to search Rahimi’s home after suspecting his involvement in more than one shooting, finding a pistol, a rifle and ammunition, along with a copy of the restraining order against him. His ex-girlfriend obtained the two-year protection order in February 2020, alleging in an affidavit that Rahimi physically abused her, threatened to kill her while brandishing a gun and fired a gun at her vehicle while she tried to flee him. The order restrained him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child.
In February, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the domestic-abuser law violated the Second Amendment. The defendant, “while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless among ‘the people’ entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees,” Judge Cory T. Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, wrote in the ruling.
The Rahimi case could clarify when misconduct or dangerousness strips a citizen of Second Amendment rights.
The appeals court relied on Bruen’s holding that lower courts should judge the constitutionality of gun-control measures based on their similarity to historical firearm regulation from the country’s early years in the late 1700s and 1800s.
That high court ruling, which struck down New York’s century-old concealed handgun permitting requirements, reinvigorated challenges to federal gun-control provisions that make it illegal for certain classes of people to possess firearms.
In Rahimi’s case, the Fifth Circuit panel concluded the domestic-abuse gun law didn’t have adequate historical support.
In March, a California federal judge declared the same statute constitutional. Judges have also clashed on whether gun rights should be extended to marijuana users, people convicted of nonviolent crimes and defendants under felony indictment.
The Justice Department moved swiftly to get the Rahimi ruling before the Supreme Court. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in the government’s appeal said the Fifth Circuit had “overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals.”
The federal law under which Rahimi had been convicted addresses “a profound threat to public safety that was ignored or minimized for too much of our Nation’s history,” she wrote, warning that striking it down would threaten “grave consequences for the safety of victims of domestic violence, law-enforcement officers and the public.”
Most states have their own laws that make it a crime to possess firearms while under a domestic-violence restraining order, many of which require people placed under orders to relinquish their guns.
Rahimi faces state charges including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and he remains in custody, according to Tarrant County records. A felony conviction on the state charges would also disqualify him from gun ownership."
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
