Fifth Circuit Case Parallels Rahimi Reasoning on Constitutional Rights

AmmoLand ^ | December 5, 2023 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On November 17, 2023, a three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in the case of USA v Kersee, unanimously held the district court order revoking his supervised release was not Constitutional. The reason was the district court did not afford him his constitutionally guaranteed right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The charges in the case came from alleged domestic violence.

There are parallels with the Rahimi case. Both cases involve domestic violence charges. In both cases, the accused have not been convicted of domestic violence. In the Rahimi case, there are additional charges in the process of being tried, but Rahimi has not yet been convicted. Kersee is a convicted felon who is out on supervised release.

In the Rahimi case, Rahimi was not afforded the right to confront witnesses because the statute in question, §922(g)(8), categorically strips people of the exercise of their Second Amendment rights without the right to confront witnesses or the right to counsel.

The law only requires a judge to issue a restraining order as requested by an individual who claims it is desired to prevent domestic violence. The law was enacted when the inferior courts were acting under the false assumption the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals. From the amicus brief by The Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute:

Notably, there is no requirement that respondents be advised before hand that issuance of the order will render it unlawful for them to possess firearms; no requirement that they be provided with counsel; no requirement that the issuing court make any specific factual findings; and no provision for a heightened standard of proof, as this Court has held is constitutionally mandated “when the individual interests at stake in a state proceeding are both ‘particularly important’and

[marktwain]

The same argument is used in this case as is in Rahimi.

The system should not be able to take a fundamental, Constitutionally ennumerated right with almost no due process.

[ExTxMarine]

ALL RED FLAG LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL - PERIOD!!

[Texas Fossil]

Thank you for posting.

Could the same argument be applied to the 1st Amendment? I see a parallel with the Censorship and conviction and punishment for a non criminal act.

[marktwain]

The First Amendment legal standards are the blueprint for Second Amendment legal standards.

[Lockbox]

Spoken with a Hispanic voice………“Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!”

[bert]

The Vatican did not write the American constitution

[Lockbox]

think the movie Blazing Saddles.....

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

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 this Ping List.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[Texas Fossil]

That makes total sense.

Now, that does not mean that our current legal system, makes sense.

[Blood of Tyrants]

As they are intended to strip a person of their RKBA without due process, yes, they are. There is a legitimate process here a person can be deemed a danger to themselves or others. Most states already have such laws. It is anti-gun leftists who want to do away with due process and strip the rights of a person on the word of practically anyone, even an ex with a grudge or an anti-gun neighbor.