Posted on 03/29/2023 7:29:27 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The 5th Circuit noted that such orders can be issued without any credible evidence of a threat to others.
The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a recent decision in which an appeals court concluded that the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment. In a petition filed this month, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar portrays that law as a commonsensical precaution that is "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the constitutional test that the Court established last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. But there are reasons to doubt that the "historical analogues" cited by the government are close enough and ample cause to worry about the threat that the policy it is defending poses to civil liberties.
Under 18 USC 922(g)(8), which Congress enacted in 1994, it is a felony, currently punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for someone to possess firearms when he is "subject to a court order" that restrains him from "harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner" or "engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury." The provision requires that the order be issued after a hearing of which the respondent received notice. It also says the order must either include a finding that the respondent "represents a credible threat" to the intimate partner's "physical safety" or explicitly prohibit "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force" that "would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."
The man at the center of this case, a Texas drug dealer named Zackey Rahimi, was convicted of violating Section 922(g)(8) in circumstances that suggest he is exactly the sort of person who should not be trusted with...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Anyone can ask for a restraining order. When it’s a woman filing against a man they’re approved 99% of the time regardless of how sketchy the claim might be. In fact I’ve read that today it’s SOP for a woman filing for divorce to request one at the same time.
No adult citizen should be deprived of his 2nd Amendment rights without having been judged to be a violent felon by a jury of his peers, or to be in psychological counseling, either inpatient or outpatient, or to have been judged mentally incompetent by a court proceeding.
I’m not going to pull numbers, but since the legal system is adversarial and doing so provides an advantage with no risk to the claimant, it’d take a strong female *not* to claim a need for a protective order.
Now if the claim had to be proven, and a bad claim came with the same penalty upon the claimant... but that doesn’t serve the leftists’ cause.
And yes,there's no real downside for a woman requesting such an order.If she has *true* reason to fear him of course she'll request it. If she doesn't having such an order in place still might benefit her regarding child custody,child support,alimony,etc.
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.
