Posted on 11/30/2022 3:46:38 AM PST by marktwain
On November 15, 2022, the United States Attorney in the Western District of Texas, Ashley C. Hoff, filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States District Court fro the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division in the case of USA v. Perez-Gallan.
Previously, on November 10, 2022, Judge David Counts had issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the indictment to Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan as invalid because it was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSR&PA) v. Bruen decision, which restored the Second Amendment as a full-fledged member of the Bill of Rights, not a second class right.
Judge Counts found the part of the controversial Lautenberg Amendment, passed in 1996, which prohibits a person who is under a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm or ammunition, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), to be unconstitutional.
The 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;
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
If they appeal it, the Fifth Circuit is likely to strike down the ban on exercising Second Amendment rights because of a mere restraining order.
Finally a grain of consciousness has shown itself.
Guns don’t harm people.
Taking guns away increases risk to all of being victimized by those intent on doing harm.
My gun protects everyone.
Why else do gun free zones get the shooter activity that the media feeds on.
The big problem with them is that the husband/boyfriend isn't allowed to present his side to the judge.
As for this case the Rats are employing their typical lawfare strategy when it comes to the 2nd Amendment...delay,delay,delay.
Finally, we may see this egregious violation of due process eliminated. A man shouldn’t lose fundamental freedoms because some vindictive harpy told a judge he should. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, period.
Perhaps Ann Coulter was right about woman suffrage.
Ann Coulter was spot on about that. The 19th Amendment was the start of the decline of the Republic, and we are in the end phases of the inevitable collapse. Emotion over logic is a disastrous way to run a country.
:: My gun protects everyone. ::
And to think...the unelected bureaucrats of the Health Department told us, “Your vaxx protects everyone.”
Ann Coulter is the Yoko Ono of the Republic party.
The Gun vs The Vax in the battle for the Nation’s Soul…
What then is the logical conclusion, extended to the end-point?
Only the government can protect you, you will not be allowed to protect yourself.
And, contrary to your words, this nation has no “soul.”
It was compromised on 22NOV1963 and fully excised in 1965.
“Finally, we may see this egregious violation of due process eliminated.”
This should include “Red Flag” laws as well. No due process when the government steals your legally owned possessions.
You make excellent points, but there’s more: the defendant has very little chance of avoiding the restraining order becoming permanent because the only thing the complainant has to testify to is that he/she (usually she) was put in fear of bodily harm. This is obviously so subjective that it is virtually impossible to refute. The exception would be the husband is a quadriplegic or similarly incapable of harming anyone at all.
There is always the right for the defendant to request a hearing on quashing the restraining order, usually held within 10 days.
That said, most of the time a RO is used a tool to screw the male.
Oregon is next for lawsuits. They have really jumped the shark.
Lawsuits have been filed in Oregon.
“Lawsuits have been filed in Oregon.”
Good.
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.