Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last month the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment allows people under protective orders for committing domestic violence to keep their guns in the case below, now they are challenging the entire federal law.
Raimi was already under a protective order and should not have had a gun when he committed the other crimes, he argued that was a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Quote:
Last month, the federal appeals court issued a terrible Second Amendment ruling, striking down the federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. The Fifth Circuit had previously upheld the law, but said it was compelled to change course by a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that requires judges to search for historical analogues to modern gun restrictions.
In the span of a month during the winter of 2020, Zackey Rahimi was involved in five shootings around Arlington, according to court documents. He shot at someone’s house after selling them prescription narcotics. After getting into a car accident, he shot at a car, returned in another vehicle and shot at the car again. Three days before Christmas, he shot at a constable’s car. And after New Year’s, he fired shots into the air outside a Whataburger after his friend’s credit card was declined.
Last month the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment allows people under protective orders for committing domestic violence to keep their guns in the case below, now they are challenging the entire federal law.
Raimi was already under a protective order and should not have had a gun when he committed the other crimes, he argued that was a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Considering the ease with which a domestic violence restraining order can be obtained, and often based only on someone's word with no proof whatsoever, I don't think it's reasonable to deny a constitutional right to someone based on such flimsy and often false or greatly exaggerated testimony.
In the example case listed, the perpetrator shouldn't have had legal access to a firearm, not because of an alleged domestic violence situation, but because he should have been under indictment for numerous felony charges.
Last month the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment allows people under protective orders for committing domestic violence to keep their guns in the case below, now they are challenging the entire federal law.
Raimi was already under a protective order and should not have had a gun when he committed the other crimes, he argued that was a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Not a terrible ruling, a constitutional one. Protective orders are not a conviction. American citizens don’t lose their rights unless they are convicted of a crime. Whether one agrees with the ruling or not, it is the correct ruling based on the constitution.
I agree with the ruling and the explanations given by the responders.
In America the Court has to convict someone to be able to remove/ suspend their Rights.
Of course we can all understand the danger that a gun presents in a domestic abuse situation. We all have a preconceived notion that a battered woman in fear for her life finally gets the courage to call the Police on her abusive spouse and they remove him. It just makes sense to also remove any guns but shouldn't the kitchen knives and other things that could be used as a deadly weapon also be taken away? This would also include any firearms that the battered woman might own because it could be turned on her, right? Still I think most women that find themselves in a situation where the ex is trying to kick in the door would take comfort in having 911 dialed in one hand and a gun in the other.
In the highlighted case the OP posted it shows that the guy should not have had guns after breaking the law so many times with a gun. Shooting at people is more than a misdemeanor and his guns should have been taken away then.
Last month the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment allows people under protective orders for committing domestic violence to keep their guns in the case below, now they are challenging the entire federal law.
Raimi was already under a protective order and should not have had a gun when he committed the other crimes, he argued that was a violation of the 2nd amendment.
Considering the ease with which a domestic violence restraining order can be obtained, and often based only on someone's word with no proof whatsoever, I don't think it's reasonable to deny a constitutional right to someone based on such flimsy and often false or greatly exaggerated testimony.
In the example case listed, the perpetrator shouldn't have had legal access to a firearm, not because of an alleged domestic violence situation, but because he should have been under indictment for numerous felony charges.
It's not that easy to obtain and the cops don't enforce them. I showed up in court beaten and I was denied. "What did you do to make him so angry?" "You need to go back home to your husband and pray to be a better wife." "He is your husband. You can't just make him stop talking to you."
Cops would watch him beat me in front of them like it was entertainment.
I had a temporary restraining order after he beat me against the wall and left me with head injury. The cops would tell me that he had a right to be there after he showed up at the job site and threatened to arrest me instead. I was fired from the job and no one would hire me again because they knew that he would show up and cause problems. Then the temporary order expired and I was not able to get a permanent one.
Note that all the 2A extremists in the thread are male.
More shots will be fired now in the ongoing war against women.
I was not allowed to have a gun against him because of my age. I was still a minor and society was okay with my getting raped and beat up. I think it is more important that crime victims are allowed to have a gun regardless of their age. They need to be able to defend themselves.
Bad divorce or relationship can have guns taken for lies and exaggeration before be adjudged.
the all or nothing at all regs and laws are just as idiotic as 'dumb' edit check exception report programs.
there are chronic beaters who definitely should be disarmed. they should not be lumped in with the false charge group. JUDGMENT is required not to be simply discarded by activist decree.
Like a felon who pleads down to a misdemeanor should not be lumped with a misdemeanor traffic violation or barking dog charge.
There are ample "historical analogues" had the court even bothered to consider the case. In fact, never before in US history have we given carte blanche authority to citizens to carry any manner of firearm at any time and any place such as we see today. Historically, people were more rational and so-called common sense gun laws and practices were not met with political activism. Historically, had an individual been discharging a gun and threatening people as this defendant had a history of doing, the sheriff would have taken his guns away from him and that would have been the end of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
