BREAKING: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Domestic Violence Restraining Order Gu

[CC27]

Star Member In It to Win It (6,722 posts)


BREAKING: Supreme Court Agrees to Review Domestic Violence Restraining Order Gun Ban

Previous post here: Unanimous panel (Jones, Ho, Wilson) strikes down the federal statute prohibiting possession of firearms while subject to a domestic violence-related restraining order

Previous post here: DOJ has asked SCOTUS to review the Fifth Circuit's ruling in US v. Rahimi

Bloomberg

The US Supreme Court will take up a major new Second Amendment case, agreeing to decide the fate of a federal law that bars gun possession by people who are subject to a domestic-violence restraining order.

The justices said they will hear the Biden administration’s appeal of a ruling that declared the 1994 law unconstitutional. The administration said the federal appeals court decision “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

The case, which the Supreme Court will consider in the nine-month term that starts in October, will test the reach of the court’s year-old ruling establishing a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public. That decision said gun laws can survive only if the government can show a history of similar, or at least analogous, restrictions.

Lower courts have since used that reasoning to find a bevy of gun laws unconstitutional, including bans on sales to minors, restrictions on people who are under indictment or were convicted of nonviolent crimes and prohibitions on untraceable “ghost guns” and on weapons with the serial numbers removed.

The high court case involves Zackey Rahimi, who was indicted under the domestic-violence gun law after taking part in five shootings near Arlington, Texas in 2020 and 2021. At the time, Rahimi was subject to a two-year restraining order secured by an ex-girlfriend he was accused of assaulting and threatening. He was sentenced to more than six years in prison after pleading guilty to the federal charge, while reserving his right to appeal.

sakabatou (40,746 posts)

1. Supremes: Hey victims of DV, go **** yourselves.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

yankee87 (1,355 posts)

3. 100% correct

I wouldn't be surprised if they make the state give them guns

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218053764

I think the DUmmies got this one wrong. As they always do

[SVPete]

The problem with at least some of these laws is that restraining orders can be obtained without full due process in which the target of the order was able to defend themselves with a jury, etc.. The constitutionality of that process for obtaining a restraining order aside, forbidding gun ownership in such a case takes away a constitutional right without due process of law, violating the 5th and 14th Amendments. Needless to say, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so the USSC might view the situation differently.

[CollectivismMustDie]

The problem with at least some of these laws is that restraining orders can be obtained without full due process in which the target of the order was able to defend themselves with a jury, etc.. The constitutionality of that process for obtaining a restraining order aside, forbidding gun ownership in such a case takes away a constitutional right without due process of law, violating the 5th and 14th Amendments. Needless to say, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so the USSC might view the situation differently.

While this is true, the actual problem, is the notion of taking away anyones guns outside of incarceration or being committed.

Logically, there are very few individuals who I'd prefer to see disarmed, but wouldn't want to see incarcerated or committed.

The second amendment was written to be plainly obvious in its scope and intent., In short, No means NO.

Over time, gray area has been contrived and constructed as a rock upon which to build the church of civilian disarmament, built from things like "reasonable" and "public safety", when in fact what is most 'reasonable' and best for 'public safety' is to incarcerate the problem individuals and keep them there until such time it is no longer necessary.

[Old n Grumpy]

The whole thing seems moot when you see violent criminals let out with no bail, or plea bargain for lesser charges or even no jail time after a conviction.