A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the government can’t stop domestic. Violence bans against gun owners — the latest domino to fall. After a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court set new. Standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws.
Who was the subject of a civil protective order. That prohibited him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order prohibits him from possessing a gun.
A federal grand jury indicted the man, who pleaded guilty. He later challenged his accusation, arguing. That the law barring him from owning a gun was unconstitutional. At first, a federal appeals court ruled against him. Saying it was more important for society to keep guns out of the hands of people. Accused of domestic violence than to protect gun ownership rights.
But then last year, the US Supreme Court issued. A new ruling in a case known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case set new standards for interpreting the Second. Amendment by saying that the government had to justify gun control laws by saying. That they were “consistent with the nation’s historic tradition of firearms control.”
The appeals court reversed its original decision and on Thursday. Decided to vacate the man’s conviction and ruled. That a federal law banning orders for people. To carry guns subject to perceived violence was unconstitutional.
The court ruled that the federal law was an “outlier.
That our forefathers would never have accepted.”—To borrow a quote from the Bruen decision.
The decision came from a three-judge panel. Consisting of Judges Corey Wilson, James Ho and Edith Jones. Wilson and Ho were nominated by former Republican President Donald Trump. While Jones was nominated by former Republican President Ronald Reagan.
The U.S. Department of Justice issued the following statement. Thursday night from Attorney General Merrick. B. Garland following the decision “30 years ago. Congress determined that a person subject to a court order restraining. Him or her intimate partner from threatening or threatening a child could own a firearm. Can’t keep Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme. Court precedent, or the Second Amendment’s text. History, and tradition, that law is constitutional. , the Division will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”
Thursday’s ruling overturns federal law.
And is unlikely to affect similar state laws, including one in California. Still, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called the judges. Who issued the ruling “enthusiasts” who “are hell-bent. On a distorted view of guns for all, leaving government powerless to protect its people.”
“That’s what the ultra-conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court wants. It’s happening, and it’s happening right now,” Newsom said. “Wake up America – this assault on our security will only speed up.”
The problem with laws like the one struck down by the federal appeals court is. That they’re too broad and don’t take into account the details of every case, said Chuck Michell. President of the California Rifle and Pistol Association.
He offered as an example one of his clients whose neighbors filed.
A restraining order against them because. They pointed a security camera at their property.
“They lost their gun rights,” he said. “When they make a blanket ban without considering individual circumstances. They shoot dogs with wolves.”
Thursday’s ruling demonstrates the far-reaching implications of Bruen’s decision. In California, the decision prompted lawmakers to amend. Their laws about concealed carry permits.
On Wednesday, Newsom approved a bill in the state legislature. That would ban people from carrying concealed guns in all public places. With exceptions for churches and businesses that put up a sign saying guns are OK.
