View Single Post
Old 11-27-2022, 04:00   #1657
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,817
Law Banning Gun Possession due to Restraining Order Unconstitutional

Good coverage of this case by Ammoland here.

Meat of the matter:
Quote:
From the opinion:

Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods. A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality. That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.

Judge Counts concludes with this:

That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds that the Government did not prove that §922(g)(8) aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.

Before and after the passage of the controversial Lautenberg Amendment in 1996, many commentators noted several constitutional problems with the law.

It was the first time a fundamental constitutional right could be removed for a misdemeanor;
It was the first time a fundamental constitutional right could be removed for a restraining order;
The amendment punished people for past behavior, thus, it was an ex-post-facto law.

When courts were presented with these arguments, the counterarguments were:

The Second Amendment is not an individual right;
People are not being punished for past acts, but for acts in the present; if they possess firearms in the present, they are violating the law (this presumes removing a constitutional right is not punishment)

Judge Counts’ opinion sweeps away those excuses. As Bruen shows the Second Amendment as a fundamental right on par with the First Amendment, those arguments no longer apply.

The Supreme Court has held a person whose constitutional rights are violated, even for a moment, suffers irreparable harm.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote