User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:00:39 PM EDT
[#1]
If true, good. The fewer anti gun laws the better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:00:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Is this the same court that struck down the bump stock ban?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:00:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Wowser
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:01:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If true, good. The fewer anti gun laws the better. Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:02:07 PM EDT
[#5]
It really is BS seeing as most ROs are handed out like candy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:02:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If true, good. The fewer anti gun laws the better. Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. Correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:02:55 PM EDT
[#7]
The very definition of infringement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:03:12 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It really is BS seeing as most ROs are handed out like candy. Judges are afraid to say no to a woman claiming a fear of domestic violence |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:03:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Man, the fifth circuit is on a bit of a roll.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:06:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Man, the fifth circuit is on a bit of a roll. We know where to file federal challenges to gun laws now |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:06:22 PM EDT
[#11]
If someone wants to kill someone. Not having a gun isn’t going to stop them, neither is a restraining order for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:08:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We know where to file federal challenges to gun laws now Pretty sure that's where one of the pistol brace ones went. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:09:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Glad I made it in before some fucking Fudd complains about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:10:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Doubtless, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society. Weighing those policy goals’ merits through the sort of means-end scrutiny our prior precedent indulged, we previously concluded that the societal benefits of § 922(g)(8) outweighed its burden on Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights. But Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:13:45 PM EDT
[#15]
What is the penalty for ignoring the court and just keep entering whatever you want…oops, sorry….we’ll fix that riki tik.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:13:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Good. It was frequently weaponized by young dependas when I was on active duty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:14:21 PM EDT
[#17]
Good
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:15:59 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:21:04 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doubtless, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society. Weighing those policy goals’ merits through the sort of means-end scrutiny our prior precedent indulged, we previously concluded that the societal benefits of § 922(g)(8) outweighed its burden on Rahimi’s Second Amendment rights. But Bruen forecloses any such analysis in favor of a historical analogical inquiry into the scope of the allowable burden on the Second Amendment right. 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. So they would have like to but the SCOTUS would have slapped their peeppee? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:22:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Judges are afraid to say no to a woman claiming a fear of domestic violence Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It really is BS seeing as most ROs are handed out like candy. Judges are afraid to say no to a woman claiming a fear of domestic violence While there are some cases where a full RO with loss of guns makes a lot of sense because some guys are violent dirtbags, it really does get abused overall. It’s pretty much SOP for a contentious wife to seek one in a divorce to boost her position in settlement/custody hearings. When I was younger, I personally watched a buddy’s crazy girlfriend settle an argument by hitting her own face on an oak tree in the yard and then allege that he beat her - he got cuffed and stuffed at work for that one. A few people including me who saw everything were able to provide witness statements about what happened and eventually get him out of the charges but it turned his life upside down for a while and he lost his job. More recently, I got to watch the drama play out when my girlfriend’s ex-husband was trying to break up and move out of his crazy new girlfriends place. She called the cops after he was gone and claimed he tried to strangle her, despite having no evidence and no bruises to show. He got to spend the night in jail and now has a permanent RO with loss of gun rights. But it gets better… the GF then used the DV charge to blackmail him into coming back by promising to recant her accusations before trial if he didn’t leave her. The dumbass fell for it and moved back in with her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:24:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. This^ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:25:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Yup I have a friend that had one on him from a crazy chick at17 for 6 months till it got thrown out. he’s 35 now and was denied a license
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:28:15 PM EDT
[#23]
If it holds it might make divorce proceedings a little fairer without some manipulative cunt and her unethical sleezeball lawyer able to extract concession out of fear of filing an RO claiming FEAR of domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:30:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Am I the only one to notice that the federal statute they referenced and declared unconstitutional was coincidentally numbered "922"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:34:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Can the feds continue enforcing the law as written?
Can this decision be cited in other 2A challenges outside the 5th? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:38:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Only applies to fifth circuit. But yes, it's widely abused and a circumvention of due process.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:39:06 PM EDT
[#27]
And a million cops just breathed a sigh of relief.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:55:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it holds it might make divorce proceedings a little fairer without some manipulative cunt and her unethical sleezeball lawyer able to extract concession out of fear of filing an RO claiming FEAR of domestic violence. My ex-wife used it to get the upper hand in our divorce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 3:58:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. Do Red Flag Laws next... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:18:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do Red Flag Laws next... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. Do Red Flag Laws next... They aren't going to be kind to anything that isn't pre-trial confinement. If you are free to go, then a 2nd Amd. restriction is not viable.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:20:54 PM EDT
[#31]
All gun laws are an infringement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:24:24 PM EDT
[#32]
Good, now do red flag laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:41:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good, now do red flag laws. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 4:45:35 PM EDT
[#34]
Now do non-violent felonies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:12:48 PM EDT
[#35]
Hoes mad |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:18:45 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:19:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it holds it might make divorce proceedings a little fairer without some manipulative cunt and her unethical sleezeball lawyer able to extract concession out of fear of filing an RO claiming FEAR of domestic violence. And have ROs ever really prevented violent nuts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:22:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Wow, that will make divorces less daunting for a lot of gun owners. I hope it eventually applies nationwide.
5th circuit is putting the smack down lately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:28:45 PM EDT
[#39]
Ruling is bullshit. “Take the guns first!”
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:30:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
This could be huge 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:43:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If true, good. The fewer anti gun laws the better. And this has been abused a lot |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:46:36 PM EDT
[#42]
I know where the female asking for a restraining order specifically asked that the guy be able to retain his guns but judge refused (CA)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 5:58:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Yes! my biggest problems with restraining orders. They generally prohibit a small georgraphical area or contact... but banning 2a is nationwide and is bullshit when no crime has occurred.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 6:06:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Good, Now do RedFlag laws,
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 6:14:33 PM EDT
[#45]
Circuit Justice: Samuel Alito
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 6:28:57 PM EDT
[#46]
The 2nd is on a roll as of late. Hope it keeps rolling until all unconstitutional laws and regulations have been struck down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 8:11:29 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 8:21:35 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Restraining orders are abused and deprive people of gun rights without having been convicted in any crime. Same with the "add on" domestic abuse component... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 8:59:26 PM EDT
[#49]
I’m perfectly ok with RO’s. In general.
As long as due process was observed. No frivolous bullshit. The investigation either produces reasonable evidence someone is in danger or no RO. As we know it’s not going to stop the most hardened d bags from continuing their harassment or violence toward the victim but it does set a reasonable precedence to use later. and that’s the problem. Reasonable due process. The fucking liberal shitbirds always over reach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2023 9:40:14 PM EDT
[#50]
That would be great, there are a lot of people who get jacked up over this who aren’t beating their spouse, significant other, friend, person they are fucking, etc.
Problem with a RO is they take your guns before the hearing, they basically show up, show you the temp restraining order, then take your shit. Then you go to court at some point. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File