[ 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.]
[[link removed]]

COURT STRIKES DOWN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUN LAW  
[[link removed]]


 

Associated Press
February 2, 2023
Politico
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ 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. , Joe Raedle/Getty Images

 

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.

* Gun Control
[[link removed]]
* gun violence
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]