Author Topic: Supreme Court to take up major domestic violence gun case  (Read 508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 383,454
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Supreme Court to take up major domestic violence gun case
« on: June 30, 2023, 08:37:45 pm »
June 30, 2023 1:54pm EDT
Supreme Court to take up major domestic violence gun case
The Supreme Court will decide whether the Second Amendment allows those under domestic violence restraining orders to own guns

By Chris Pandolfo , Bill Mears , Shannon Bream | Fox News

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review whether a federal law that bans people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms violates the Second Amendment.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled last month that people under domestic violence restraining orders retain their constitutional right to own firearms, finding that the federal law prohibiting them from doing so was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision.

The Department of Justice appealed the decision in March, and the Supreme Court has now agreed to take up the case in its next term. 

The case, United States v. Zackey Rahimi, concerns a man who was the subject of a civil protective order that banned him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also banned him from having any guns.

Police in Texas found a rifle and a pistol in the man's home. He was indicted by a federal grand jury and pleaded guilty. He later challenged his indictment, arguing that the law that prevented him from owning a gun was unconstitutional.

He lost his case in federal appeals court, which held that it was more important for society to keep guns out of the hands of people accused of domestic violence than it was to protect a person's individual right to own a gun.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-take-up-major-domestic-violence-gun-case?intcmp=tw_fnc

   
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,205
Re: Supreme Court to take up major domestic violence gun case
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2023, 09:56:56 pm »
IMO, not being a lawyer or playing one on TV, IF the restraining order was obtained without a formal trial in which he could offer a defense, to a jury, this law probably violates the 5th and 14th Amendments, which forbid taking life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
If, as anti-Covid-vaxxers claim, https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/robert-f-kennedy-jr-said-the-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-deadliest-vaccine-ever-made-thats-not-true/ , https://gospelnewsnetwork.org/2021/11/23/covid-shots-are-the-deadliest-vaccines-in-medical-history/ , The Vaccine is deadly, where in the US have Pfizer and Moderna hidden the millions of bodies of those who died of "vaccine injury"? Is reality a Big Pharma Shill?

Millions now living should have died. Anti-Covid-Vaxxer ghouls hardest hit.

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,966
Re: Supreme Court to take up major domestic violence gun case
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2023, 01:33:17 pm »
IMO, not being a lawyer or playing one on TV, IF the restraining order was obtained without a formal trial in which he could offer a defense, to a jury, this law probably violates the 5th and 14th Amendments, which forbid taking life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Very doubtful.  However, since the restraining order was a civil protective order, the burden of proof would have been more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt, and it's likely that the Court will find that this is simply too low of a burden to justify denying a person their Second Amendment rights, even though conviction in a criminal court would be sufficient to justify denying that right.