Federal appeals court expands gun rights

x65943 · Feb 3, 2023

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pe...n-own-guns-us-appeals-court-rules-2023-02-02/

The US 5th circuit court of appeals based in New Orleans struck down a federal law prohibiting those under domestic violence orders from owning guns

One Zackey Rahimi who was under a restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend, and who was subsequently found to be in possession of multiple firearms, has had his 6 year prison sentence thrown out

The Trump appointed judge writing the decision said such restrictions on the right to bear arms were not in keeping with the founding fathers' vision of gun rights

As such those under domestic violence orders can now legally purchase and own guns in all 50 states and federal territories

Xzi · Feb 3, 2023

So basically the only way to prevent a habitual domestic abuser from escalating to murderer is now to shoot and kill them preemptively. Real smart, Trump judge.

Hanafuda · Feb 3, 2023

Restored, not "expanded."

Innocent until proven guilty, right? These temporary restraining orders are only supposed to be issued on probable cause, which still isn't enough for a conviction. But in practice, magistrates issue them automatically when a woman asks for it because they want to make sure their ass is covered. Divorce lawyers regularly advise new female clients that, hypothetically of course, a restraining order would be advantageous to their negotiating position in the divorce ... and all they have to do is write down that he makes her afraid and the magistrate will issue it. I'm not saying they don't serve a valid purpose in most instances, but they are abused. And murder doesn't require a firearm.

As far as I can see this ruling doesn't have any effect on the prohibitions against felons or persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning firearms, @Xzi. But depriving a person with a "clean record" of a fundamental Constitutional right, without having first been found guilty of a crime, is a violation of the right to due process. The 5th Circuit didn't even need to apply the Bruen decision to reach that conclusion, but that works too.

Deleted member 586536 · Feb 3, 2023

Hanafuda said:
As far as I can see this ruling doesn't have any effect on the prohibitions against felons or persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning firearms, @Xzi. But depriving a person with a "clean record"

Say someone has a restraining order against another person for demestic abuse/violence. The demestic abuser can now get a gun.

Real smart move.

TraderPatTX · Feb 3, 2023

Hanafuda said:
Restored, not "expanded."

Innocent until proven guilty, right? These temporary restraining orders are only supposed to be issued on probable cause, which still isn't enough for a conviction. But in practice, magistrates issue them automatically when a woman asks for it because they want to make sure their ass is covered. Divorce lawyers regularly advise new female clients that, hypothetically of course, a restraining order would be advantageous to their negotiating position in the divorce ... and all they have to do is write down that he makes her afraid and the magistrate will issue it. I'm not saying they don't serve a valid purpose in most instances, but they are abused. And murder doesn't require a firearm.

As far as I can see this ruling doesn't have any effect on the prohibitions against felons or persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning firearms, @Xzi. But depriving a person with a "clean record" of a fundamental Constitutional right, without having first been found guilty of a crime, is a violation of the right to due process. The 5th Circuit didn't even need to apply the Bruen decision to reach that conclusion, but that works too.

Very good points. A restraining order is not a conviction. People with restraining orders can also vote so just having a restraining order does not allow your Constitutional rights to be taken away.

I already see people having trouble with this concept here.

Hanafuda · Feb 3, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
I already see people having trouble with this concept here.

That will be the theme of this thread, yeah.

Xerokard · Feb 3, 2023

If everyone had a gun, maybe there would be less victims, because your would be victim might shoot you.

Deleted member 586536 · Feb 3, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
Very good points. A restraining order is not a conviction. People with restraining orders can also vote

Ah yes, the great point of voting while being killed.
Demestic abuser that you put a restraining order against gets a gun?
Just vote him away. Right then and there. They definitely won't shoot you. It automagically works.

It's not like the entire point you got the restraining order was because of violence they inflicted or anything. Not at alllll

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2023

Xerokard said:
If everyone had a gun, maybe there would be less victims, because your would be victim might shoot you.

So you think that whoever is the abuser is going to outloud announce "I am going to fucking shoot you"
And the victim is going to know that and pull out their fire arm?

Or do you realize that it's a premeditated scenario, and the victim won't have an idea what's going on until the gun is already fired.

Are right wingers seriously that stupid?
A single bullet is likely to be fatal. The person who is likely to be the aggressor has littearly first strike advantage. They're ( they being the victim) not going to have the time to identify the abuser, notice the gun, pull out their own, before the abuser shoots in 0.2 SECONDS. 0.2 seconds is how long it takes to pull the trigger.

Edit: for some reason I said microseconds. That is incorrect. 0.2 was referring to seconds. I have amended my posts with that change.

Xzi · Feb 3, 2023

Hanafuda said:
As far as I can see this ruling doesn't have any effect on the prohibitions against felons or persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from owning firearms, @Xzi.

Well that is a positive note for the general populace, red flag laws are extremely important given the clear and obvious pattern of escalation among those who commit domestic violence. That being the case though, I can't help but feel this ruling is mostly a gift to abusive police officers, since it's nigh impossible to convict them of any crime.

TraderPatTX · Feb 3, 2023

Nothereed said:
Ah yes, the great point of voting while being killed.
Demestic abuser that you put a restraining order against gets a gun?
Just vote him away. Right then and there. They definitely won't shoot you. It automagically works.

It's not like the entire point you got the restraining order was because of violence they inflicted or anything. Not at alllll

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2023

A restraining order is an accusation. Nothing more. This is why we have trials in this country. To protect average people from authoritarians such as yourself.

Nothereed said:
So you think that whoever is the abuser is going to outloud announce "I am going to fucking shoot you"
And the victim is going to know that and pull out their fire arm?

Or do you realize that it's a premeditated scenario, and the victim won't have an idea what's going on until the gun is already fired.

Are right wingers seriously that stupid?
A single bullet is likely to be fatal. The person who is likely to be the aggressor has littearly first strike advantage. They're (the victim) not going to have the time to identify the abuser, notice the gun, pull out their own, before the abuser shoots in 0.2 MILISECOND. 0.2 milliseconds is how long it takes to pull the trigger.

You are admitting that restraining orders are worthless. The aggressor should be nowhere close to the other person to even use a gun.

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2023

Xzi said:
Well that is a positive note for the general populace, red flag laws are extremely important given the clear and obvious pattern of escalation among those who commit domestic violence.

Red flag laws bypass the 2nd and 4th Amendments and due process.

Xzi said:
That being the case though, I can't help but feel this ruling is mostly a gift to abusive police officers, since it's nigh impossible to convict them of any crime.

Like those 5 diversity hires in Memphis?

Xerokard · Feb 3, 2023

Nothereed said:
Ah yes, the great point of voting while being killed.
Demestic abuser that you put a restraining order against gets a gun?
Just vote him away. Right then and there. They definitely won't shoot you. It automagically works.

It's not like the entire point you got the restraining order was because of violence they inflicted or anything. Not at alllll

Post automatically merged: Feb 3, 2023

So you think that whoever is the abuser is going to outloud announce "I am going to fucking shoot you"
And the victim is going to know that and pull out their fire arm?

Or do you realize that it's a premeditated scenario, and the victim won't have an idea what's going on until the gun is already fired.

Are right wingers seriously that stupid?
A single bullet is likely to be fatal. The person who is likely to be the aggressor has littearly first strike advantage. They're (the victim) not going to have the time to identify the abuser, notice the gun, pull out their own, before the abuser shoots in 0.2 MILISECOND. 0.2 milliseconds is how long it takes to pull the trigger.

Right, it's totally better that the victims are completely defenseless, that way the aggressor won't even think twice, like that one chick that got raped on a train full of people. Brilliant...

Xzi · Feb 3, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
Red flag laws bypass the 2nd and 4th Amendments and due process.

The second amendment has never been absolute, it's common sense that people who pose a clear and present danger to themselves or others shouldn't possess firearms. Then again, common sense has never been your strong suit, so I imagine you are probably in favor of handing guns out to prisoners and those committed to mental hospitals too.

TraderPatTX said:
Like those 5 diversity hires in Memphis?

Like the 40% of police officers nationwide who openly admit to being domestic abusers, and the 20%+ more who want to keep it a secret. The last fucking thing we need to be doing right now is granting them more power over their victims.

TraderPatTX · Feb 4, 2023

Xzi said:
The second amendment has never been absolute, it's common sense that people who pose a clear and present danger to themselves or others shouldn't possess firearms. Then again, common sense has never been your strong suit, so I imagine you are probably in favor of handing guns out to prisoners and those committed to mental hospitals too.

Are the 4th Amendment and due process not absolute either? Funny you completely ignored those parts.

Xzi said:
Like the 40% of police officers nationwide who openly admit to being domestic abusers, and the 20%+ more who want to keep it a secret. The last fucking thing we need to be doing right now is granting them more power over their victims.

You guys love posting numbers with zero reference. Am I supposed to just trust you guys because we ain't there yet in this relationship.

Xzi · Feb 4, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
Are the 4th Amendment and due process not absolute either? Funny you completely ignored those parts.

Because they're not applicable. It's a judge who reviews things on a case by case basis and issues the order to seize weapons under red flag laws, and therefore not a violation of the fourth amendment or due process. A jury is not always involved in every charge/conviction, nor is one required to be.

TraderPatTX said:
You guys love posting numbers with zero reference. Am I supposed to just trust you guys because we ain't there yet in this relationship.

Gotta be one of the most commonly-known statistics since the advent of the internet. In case you really are that ignorant though, here ya go:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338997.pdf

The studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991, so I'm sure you'll bitch about them being outdated, but it's police unions that have done everything possible to prevent newer studies on the subject. Certainly not because the numbers look any better for them now than they did then.

TraderPatTX · Feb 4, 2023

Xzi said:
Because they're not applicable. It's a judge who reviews things on a case by case basis and issues the order to seize weapons under red flag laws, and therefore not a violation of the fourth amendment or due process. A jury is not always involved in every charge/conviction, nor is one required to be.

A restraining order is not a guilty/not guilty verdict either. So yes, they are applicable.

Xzi said:
Gotta be one of the most commonly-known statistics since the advent of the internet. In case you really are that ignorant though, here ya go:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338997.pdf

The studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991, so I'm sure you'll bitch about them being outdated, but it's police unions that have done everything possible to prevent newer studies on the subject. Certainly not because the numbers look any better for them now than they did then.

You do know that none of those cops are on any force right now. So you are taking what they said and applying it to current police officers. Guess that's par for the course for a leftist. You equate slave owners of the 1860's to current day southerners. Ffs guy, you used to be smarter than this back in January.

Xzi · Feb 4, 2023

TraderPatTX said:
A restraining order is not a guilty/not guilty verdict either. So yes, they are applicable.

The fourth amendment requires a judge or jury consider the case, and due process requires the same. Proper legal procedure is followed when it comes to red flag laws, certainly more so than when it comes to no-knock warrants being issued.

TraderPatTX said:
You do know that none of those cops are on any force right now.

And you know full well that there has been no meaningful police reform since 1991, if anything they've since been granted carte blanche to get away with even more criminal activity. Once again you demonstrate that you aren't capable of arguing in good faith.

lolcatzuru · Feb 4, 2023

Xzi said:
So basically the only way to prevent a habitual domestic abuser from escalating to murderer is now to shoot and kill them preemptively. Real smart, Trump judge.

sounds logical to me., dont domestic abuse.

Xzi · Feb 4, 2023

lolcatzuru said:
sounds logical to me., dont domestic abuse.

Except then the abuse victim often ends up convicted and jailed, making our laws entirely counter-productive. It's a little late to return to the wild West, much as certain people love to fantasize about it.

Deleted member 586536 · Feb 4, 2023

Xerokard said:
Right, it's totally better that the victims are completely defenseless, that way the aggressor won't even think twi

Better idea. Don't give demostic abusers guns, you know. What we would do before this stupid ass court case.

Sir Tortoise · Feb 4, 2023

I for one fully support the idea of giving domestic abusers guns. I do not see any possible reasons why that might be a bad idea.

Federal appeals court expands gun rights

i can be your sega dreamcast or sega nightmarecast

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Returned shipping and mailing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Returned shipping and mailing

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Returned shipping and mailing

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum