"We used to suffer from crime, now we suffer from laws" Publius Cornelius Tacitus.
Posted on 02/10/2023 3:52:39 AM PST by marktwain
A three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled a mere restraining order is insufficient to ban rights protected by the Second Amendment. The decision follows the long judicial practice in the United States. Fundamental constitutionally protected rights may not be removed without a criminal conviction in a court of law.
Restraining orders have the merest hint of due process. They are often granted without any representation on the part of the individual accused. The utility of restraining orders and the removal of rights because of them have long been in doubt. Intimate partner homicides decreased sharply in the decades previous to 1996 when the federal law banning possession of firearms from those who were subject to a restraining order went into effect. Then, they leveled off.
The United States Supreme Court, in the Heller decision of 2008, affirmed the longstanding view of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right, a view which had been ignored by Progressive judges in the appellate courts since 1941, where they either misinterpreted the Miller decision of 1939 or deliberately refused to follow it, as in the Cases decision in 1942.
The Supreme Court refused most Second Amendment cases from 2010 to 2022, allowing some appellate courts to concoct a convoluted scheme to render the Second Amendment irrelevant. In the Bruen decision of 2022, the Supreme Court reasserted its findings in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Caetano (2016). The rights protected by the Second Amendment must be protected at the same level as the First Amendment.
Bruen gave explicit instructions to the lower courts. Rights protected by the Second Amendment may only be infringed if those infringements were understood as acceptable when
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Shouldn’t this apply to red flag laws ?
DING! DING! DING!
We have a WINNER!!!
Yes, it should.
L
Pretty sure that’s next. With jurisprudence on our side, this should be a 9-0 decision in SCOTUS even though we all know that’s not going to happen.
“And that’s me! My guys are still under a judicial mistrangement order... that blue thing I got from her! They could be exposing themselves!“
LOL! One of the best movie lines of all time!
To be clear, that means you are innocent until proven guilty and you have a right to face your accuser.
I’m not sure why such little things have slipped through the cracks. /s
One of the fundamental principles of Progressivism is the Constitution is old and outdated; modern government has to find ways to "work around" or interpret it.
Limits on government power are abhorrent to Progressive philosophy.
Every state has "civil commitment" laws on the books. Those laws deal perfectly...effectively...with people who might be too unstable to possess a firearm.
“Shouldn’t this apply to red flag laws ?”
Yes.
tell that to Eyepatch McCain ...
"We used to suffer from crime, now we suffer from laws" Publius Cornelius Tacitus.
It’s about friggin time...
Common sense and all that
“We used to suffer from criminals, now we suffer from lawyers” Bertus Maximus
This Ping List is for all news pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
That’s why I’ve always refused to support red flag laws. There no due process for the accused before grabbing their guns!
It’s probably a law that’s designed to be abused
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Good news! Restraining orders have not always been filed for honest reasons. For real efforts to decrease domestic violence, activists should focus more on drug abuse, alcoholism and antisocial behaviors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.