Identifiers for the case.
Posted on 11/28/2022 7:59:21 AM PST by marktwain
Federal District Judge David Counts in the Western District of Texas has ruled the controversial federal law banning gun possession by a person who has been served with a restraining order for domestic violence is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). This statute makes it a crime to possess a firearm if the person is subject to a court issued restraining order about domestic violence. The maximum term of imprisonment for violation of the statue is up to 10 years in prison. The actual wording of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) is this:
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-
(8) who is subject to a court order that-
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;
The person subject to a restraining order alone has not been convicted of any crime.
Restraining orders do not have the protections afforded suspects in an actual trial. Restraining orders have historically been obtained from judges with little effort.
A restraining order does not show the person restrained is guilty of domestic violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Identifiers for the case.
This seems to also gut “red flag” laws. I’d be curious if this is used to challenge those.
I’ll be damned.. common sense.
Almost like an infringement right. Lucky for us branDUHn has ‘splained to us that those pesky amendments aren’t absolute. So think there would be an issue if someone wanted to mess with the “not absolute’” 13th or 19th amendments? 🤔😵
It always amazes me that apparently intelligent people with a literal duty to uphold our constitution actually pass such laws. Either they are utter fools, or they believe they will get away with it and think the rest of us are fools.
ANY law restricting the possession of arms (not just firearms) is unconstitutional. Period. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Holy-moly this is going to do more than ruffle a few feathers !!!
I can hear the noise of millions of undershorts twisting into knots from coast to coast.
Not sure if we’ve got enough popcorn stockpiled for this show’s national opening.
Lautenberg also crossed the Rubicon, by making ANY misdemeanor cause for being a Prohibited Person. I expect that over the next 20 years, that net will widen.
My only consolation is knowing that Lautenberg is dead.
Define “right”.
Good ruling, many of the restraining orders are based on phony allegations from acquaintances.
You stated a core belief of Progressives.
Here is my essay on it. It was very well received.
it’s not the plastic and steel, it’s the flesh and bone holding it
In this context, the ability to arm one’s self, unencumbered by the government, as intended by the Founders, for protection from the very government they created with the Constitution.
“ The maximum term of imprisonment for violation of the statue is up to 10 years in prison.”
10 years for violating a statue?
L
“My only consolation is knowing that Lautenberg is dead.”
The downside though is that his suffering is over.
Domestic violence implies the person has already committed an act of violence.
This might be evidenced by a sworn statement under penalty of perjury or by physical injury.
“credible threat”
Now that’s where things get questionable.
“In this context, the ability to arm one’s self, unencumbered by the government, as intended by the Founders, for protection from the very government they created with the Constitution.”
That might or might not define “the right to keep and bear arms”, but it doesn’t respond well to my request to define “right”.
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.