Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

5th Circuit OKs gun possession for people guilty of domestic violence

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ursidman, Feb 2, 2023.

  1. ursidman

    ursidman VIP Member

    12,194
    22,046
    3,348
    Sep 27, 2007
    Bug Tussle NC
    This 5th Circuit ruling strikes down federal law prohibiting those guilty of domestic violence from possessing firearms. We have someone who has self-identified as being violent to strangers and friends but the court says - that's OK, we were wrong to take your guns away. The judges are insane.

    This guy:
    Between December 2020 and January 2021, Rahimi was involved in five shootings in and around Arlington,Texas.1 OnDecember1,after selling narcotics to an individual, he fired multiple shots into that individual’s residence. The following day, Rahimi was involved in a car accident. He exited his vehicle, shot at the other driver, and fled the scene. He returned to the scene in a different vehicle and shot at the other driver’s car. On December 22, Rahimi shot at a constable’s vehicle. On January 7, Rahimi fired multiple shots in the air after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.

    Officers in the Arlington Police Department identified Rahimi as a suspect in the shootings and obtained a warrant to search his home. Officers executed the warrant and found a rifle and a pistol. Rahimi admitted that he possessed the firearms. He also admitted that he was subject to an agreed civil protective order entered February 5, 2020, by a Texas state court after Rahimi’s alleged assault of his ex-girlfriend. The protective order restrained him from harassing, stalking, or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also expressly prohibited Rahimi from possessing a firearm.

    and in their wisdom the judges decide:
    Through that lens, we conclude that § 922(g)(8)’s ban on possession of firearms is an “outlier[] that our ancestors would never have accepted.” Id. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional, and Rahimi’s conviction under that statute must be vacated.

    REVERSED; CONVICTION VACATED.


    https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...1675361904/United_States_v_Rahimi_Opinion.pdf

    No doubt, a new ruling on the 2nd amendment will be forthcoming once this asinine ruling is appealed to the Supremes. Not hopeful though. Everyone, strap up.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2023
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    This is a deeply demented doctrine. And I'm surprised these judges are so brazen that they applied in this case, instead of one with more defensible facts. That is, unless they also want to make sure that women feel more fear than they already do, what you knowing this court, maybe a feature.

    Let's be clear. This rule of law about the historical understanding is nonsense on stilts. It makes zero sense and is rather absurd as an offered bit of legal reasoning. But it is nonetheless the law of the land, and many will die for it
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    7,541
    590
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    So… I guess if rights are suddenly “absolute” convicted felons should be allowed to carry as well… and vote. That appears to be the logic of this ruling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    17,531
    1,222
    1,513
    Apr 8, 2007
    Carry more likely than voting.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. channingcrowderhungry

    channingcrowderhungry Premium Member

    7,264
    1,565
    3,013
    Apr 3, 2007
    Bottom of a pint glass
    Felons should have firearms while incarcerated. Anything less isn't absolute
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. sierragator

    sierragator GC Hall of Fame

    13,295
    12,846
    1,653
    Apr 8, 2007
    Just sell them in vending machines :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  7. G8tas

    G8tas GC Hall of Fame

    2,830
    560
    383
    Sep 22, 2008
    I think that the government should send everyone a gun. Remove all medal detectors from courthouses too
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Might solve some things actually. [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,144
    5,096
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    Yeah, it's interesting that Republican SCOTUS and the Fifth Circus haven't invalidated the rules preventing citizens from bringing guns into their courthouses.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. helix

    helix VIP Member

    6,555
    6,157
    2,798
    Apr 3, 2007
    The title is misleading. A protective order does not mean one has been found guilty of domestic violence. Rather, they are usually ex parte hearings and in many cases (depending on the locality) require a very low bar to obtain. My wife has actually been through it with an ex.

    that said, this guy shouldn’t have had a gun for any number of other reasons, just not the one they chose to use to confiscate and charge.


    Well, withholding firearms from felons does raise the question of why we let someone back out into society that we don’t trust to possess a gun. Said law also does not seem to be listened to by criminals who do not fear going back to prison and are determined to acquire a gun illegally anyways.
     
  12. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    7,541
    590
    2,843
    Apr 16, 2007
    It is misleading in the sense this guy apparently committed several crimes, including a drug deal where he discharged the weapon in question. It is not immediately clear to me if he was convicted for his other crimes/illicit activities described. He was “guilty” of violating a restraining order, pled to that, and that guilty is what is vacated by this court. But the original issue was essentially a restraining order NOT a conviction of domestic violence. It is fair to point that out.

    Still, this is an insane absolutist position for gun rights, and I severely doubt these yahoos are equally “absolutist” in their constitutional protections from other issues like illegal search and seizure, or issues re: cash bail. Or even voting rights.

    In effect, they are siding not with a law abiding citizen, but a gun toting criminal who apparently had due process (and good cause) to have his gun seized. What this court is saying is that even this due process is unconstitutional, which of course is complete horsecrap. It basically precludes taking guns from mentally ill or people like the numerous mass shooters who exhibited clear warning signs but committed no crime. This ruling locks in that courts/law enforcement can do nothing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2023
  13. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    It was an agreed order, not one entered ex parte. Due process claims are an attempt to deflect. It was in place months later when he violated. And the holding does not distinguish on the basis of contested findings; it’s gun drunk ruling would bar such orders regardless of the level of process
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,144
    5,096
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    They also chose to reject the evidence showing that dangerous people weren't allowed to own firearms because domestic abusers weren't included. Basically, because our country treated women like shit in the past, we're apparently powerless to do anything about it in the present. Idiotic.
     
  15. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,628
    844
    2,968
    Apr 9, 2007
    Technically it was a conviction for violating the federal statute barring prohibited persons from possessing a firearm, not for violation of the restraining order itself. The existence of the restraining order is just what happened to make him a prohibited person in this instance.

    I don’t entirely disagree with Ho’s concurrence that, if someone is too dangerous to possess firearms, the remedy is to charge them with a crime rather than to deprive them of their Second Amendment rights as a collateral consequence of a civil proceeding. But this (essentially an add-on charge for prohibited person in possession thrown in on someone who also committed and was charged with substantive gun crimes) is certainly an odd case to pick in order to push that reasoning.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    16,119
    2,470
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    Are you under the impression that civil courts cannot make findings and remove constitutional rights, or are you just saying that the Second Amendment is a right above all other rights? Because civil courts do that all the time
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,144
    5,096
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    That's an utterly absurd stance. The government can take a suicidal person's freedom away via a civil proceeding, but it can't temporarily take away his firearms? You people and your insane views. It's interesting how these crazy interpretations don't manage to extend to other rights.
     
  18. GatorBen

    GatorBen Premium Member

    5,628
    844
    2,968
    Apr 9, 2007
    I don’t oppose involuntary commitment, and I don’t oppose involuntary commitment as a basis for making someone a prohibited person for firearms possession. In fact I’ve said on here that a failure to actually use involuntary commitment is a problem in light of the tragic frequency with which we have a mass shooting and promptly learn that everyone who knew the shooter knew he was crazy.

    If we can demonstrate that someone is a credible threat to themselves or others, institutionalize them until they aren’t. But the fact of the matter is, we take the decision to deprive someone of their freedom a lot more seriously than we do the decision to say “stay 200 yards away from this person.” Because of that difference in how seriously we take the decisions, I don’t know that the loss of a fundamental right should necessarily flow from the latter.

    I’ll admit that a domestic violence protection order is not one of the prohibited person categories I feel strongly needs to go away (if you wanted to chip away at one, there’s a lot better policy arguments for carving out non-violent felons, IMO), I was just noting that I don’t think the reasoning in Ho’s concurrence (at least as applied to circumstances other than being adjudged mentally incompetent) is necessarily inherently wrong.

    And, for what it’s worth, I tend to think gun and voting rights should probably run together in most circumstances. If we can’t trust you enough to own a gun or vote, you probably shouldn’t be on the streets. But if we’re comfortable setting you free, you should have your fundamental rights back.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer VIP Member

    14,144
    5,096
    3,213
    Oct 30, 2017
    Fair enough.
     
  20. tilly

    tilly Superhero Mod. Fast witted. Bulletproof posts. Moderator VIP Member

    Sometimes I log in just to watch the lawyers disagree. :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1