Law barring people with domestic violence restraining orders from having guns is unconstitutional, court rules

[j brown's body]

—
"A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.

The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.

Link

Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.

 

[Arlette]

At the time of the Constitution's framing there was no such thing as domestic violence.

What a ****ing shit hole this country is.

 

[CLAX1911]

—
"A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.

The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.

Link

Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.

Not sure about Republicans but it seems mostly leftists that don't want women to be armed.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

We are a very silly people.

 

[Artymoon]

Restraining order is not due process. Heck, anyone can file an RO.

 

[JMB802]

Restraining order is not due process. Heck, anyone can file an RO.

Restraining orders are reviewed and approved by Judges and courts. Is that not due process of law?

 

[Mr Person]

We are a very silly people.

If only it was in the Monty Python sense of silly.

 

[Chock Full o Nuts]

Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.

My brother is one of "those people".. Except the fact that he dealt with a lunatic for almost 20 years whom dragged everyone under the sun into court over the years(My former bosses just because he did some construction work on thier building, people she didn't even know, etc.. You name it!)

My nephew at around 8 even asked me "why's my mom crazy?" "I don't know...."

Fast forward, several years divorced, and he's mostly raising her child from another while shes...........?

Can't own a firearm because a police officer filed a report "saying"....

Well that's the law!!!

You know where you can put that stereotype, right?

 

[Mycroft]

—
"A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.

The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.

Link

Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.

Those Republicans want those women to be able to arm themselves...as the Constitution calls for.

If those gun-wielding husbands want to go up against an armed woman who is determined to protect herself, then we can nominate that husband for the Darwin of the Year Award.

 

[Loulit01]

You can have a gun but if you pull her braids you'll get detention.

Do women who vote republican have a death wish?

 

[Grand Mal]

—
"A federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a conservative-leaning appeals court ruled Thursday.

The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s expansion of Second Amendment rights last year in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

“Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said.

Link

Republicans really have it out for women, who they seem to expect to do not much more than bang out babies and not cross their gun weilding husbands.

Any talk of remedying the gun violence problem in the US always comes up against the constitutional rights of the shooters.

 

[CLAX1911]

Restraining orders are reviewed and approved by Judges and courts. Is that not due process of law?

Not to determine guilt if criminal activity. So no.

 

[Loulit01]

Those Republicans want those women to be able to arm themselves...as the Constitution calls for.

If those gun-wielding husbands want to go up against an armed woman who is determined to protect herself, then we can nominate that husband for the Darwin of the Year Award.

They can meet at the O.K. Corral and settle things like men!

 

[BirdinHand]

Restraining order is not due process. Heck, anyone can file an RO.

Incorrect.

To receive a restraining order, a judge has to have heard the case and found guilt/cause.

Temporary restraining orders are just that - temporary. They are either found to be valid or they are dismissed. They exist for a very short duration.

Someone with a domestic violence restraining order against them has been found to either have committed domestic violence OR be a credible threat of committing domestic violence. (Meaning made threats, etc)

 

[CLAX1911]

You can have a gun but if you pull her braids you'll get detention.

Do women who vote republican have a death wish?

Again it's Democrats that want them defenseless.

 

[Loulit01]

Again it's Democrats that want them defenseless.

Idiot.

 

[CLAX1911]

Incorrect.

To receive a restraining order, a judge has to have heard the case and found guilt/cause.

Temporary restraining orders are just that - temporary. They are either found to be valid or they are dismissed. They exist for a very short duration.

Someone with a domestic violence restraining order against them has been found to either have committed domestic violence OR be a credible threat of committing domestic violence. (Meaning made threats, etc)

If you haven't been convicted of a crime there cannot be a loss of rights.

 

[BirdinHand]

Oh yay.

Wife beaters and child abusers get their guns again.

What could possibly go wrong.

 

[BirdinHand]

If you haven't been convicted of a crime there cannot be a loss of rights.

Yeah, God forbid society stopped the guy from killing her the first time by slapping him with a restraining order and taking away his guns when he threatened to kill her.



He didn’t actually DO it, so let’s give him back the guns.

What could possibly go wrong.

 

[Lursa]

Even I think this explanation is bullshit:

“The purpose of these ‘dangerousness’ laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another,” the 5th Circuit opinion read. “Therefore, laws disarming ‘dangerous’ classes of people are not ‘relevantly similar’” to “serve as historical analogues.” link​

Doesnt Alito oversee the 5th Circuit court?

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, God forbid society stopped the guy from killing her the first time by slapping him with a restraining order and taking away his guns when he threatened to kill her.



He didn’t actually DO it, so let’s give him back the guns.

What could possibly go wrong.

is right. Such BS, we hold people in jail all the time before trial, awaiting their due process. Months and months. Seems like a loss of liberty to me, before the fact.

 

[BirdinHand]

Somewhere tonight, there are women and children scared out of their minds because the guy that threatened them and tormented them will now be able to have guns again.

Way to go.

‘Merica.

 

[Artymoon]

Restraining orders are reviewed and approved by Judges and courts. Is that not due process of law?

No, the subject has not been convicted of anything. Rather, they are being told to stay away.

 

[Artymoon]

Incorrect.

To receive a restraining order, a judge has to have heard the case and found guilt/cause.

Temporary restraining orders are just that - temporary. They are either found to be valid or they are dismissed. They exist for a very short duration.

Someone with a domestic violence restraining order against them has been found to either have committed domestic violence OR be a credible threat of committing domestic violence. (Meaning made threats, etc)

You do not have to be convicted of breaking any law for a judge to issue an RO. Ergo, no due process when it comes to prohibiting you from exercising a constitutional right.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Any talk of remedying the gun violence problem in the US always comes up against the constitutional rights of the shooters.

Constitutional rights of the shooters? Nobody has a right to shoot innocent people, constitutional or otherwise.