5th Circuit: Beat up your wife? She has a restraining order? No problem; go ahead and keep your guns

[Gil Bang 25898]

 

 

[CooterBrown 17913]

It’s the first step to removing all gun control. The founders believed in zero restrictions so all gun laws are invalid.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Wrong thread and forum 

[YGIFS 19449]

Well this will be good for the stock prices of gun manufacturers, no?  
 

I’d make a special DV45 limited edition.  

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

Gun inflation is peaking. 

[Js1 85114]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Wrong thread and forum 

Yeah the Trumptard circle jerk here is going to be upset 

[Neonmoon 38127]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah the Trumptard circle jerk here is going to be upset 

Or there is already a thread for Supreme Court decisions in the CR, and the information was already posted and was being discussed. 

[Parliament 14138]

1234

Edited February 3, 2023 by Parliament

[scottsins 1953]

Or there is already a thread for Supreme Court decisions in the CR, and the information was already posted and was being discussed. 

Why would this be in a thread about SCOTUS decisions, since this is not one?

[tx 3 putt 76404]

 

[Bullneck 18987]

The 2a clearly recognizes the authority of a well regulated militia to shoot to kill or something. 

Gil Bang has done run amok.

[South Austin 52148]

The Fifth Circuit has become a collection of mostly awful human beings.

[TwiceHorn 31285]

20 minutes ago, South Austin said:

The Fifth Circuit has become a collection of mostly awful human beings.

True, but the scotus decision in Breuen (sp?) makes these types of cases easier and may even require the result. Some district judges and circuits are going to struggle harder to avoid these results than others. 

[scottsins 1953]

True, but the scotus decision in Breuen (sp?) makes these types of cases easier and may even require the result. Some district judges and circuits are going to struggle harder to avoid these results than others. 

Correct.

I would also point out that the Texas state statutes relevant to this issue MAY not be affected for several reasons.

The UCW statute is most analogous, EXCEPT the underlying PO in Texas requires a finding that family violence has actually occurred (FV includes threats of violence). That requirement is not in the federal statute. This distinction might make a difference since a lot of this opinion focuses on “law abiding citizen”, which a person subject to a Texas PO is arguably not.

Also, there is a Texas criminal law for “violation of a protective order”. Since virtually all Texas protective orders include a prohibition against firearm possession, someone could be prosecuted under that statute.

[Brisketexan 104628]

The reasoning here on this issue is VERY akin to the reasoning the 5th Circuit uses to perpetually uphold and enforce qualified immunity.

"Yes, there is clearly established law that a cop walking up to a person, saying 'die, scum,' and shooting him in the face, is a violation of constitutional rights.  Well, sort of.   See, that case was about a shooting that happened on a weekday.  And the present case before us happened on a Saturday.  Thus, it was not CLEARLY established that it's a constitutional violation to shoot a dude in the face for no reason on a WEEKEND.  So, the officer retains his qualified immunity."

The nitpickery employed simply to reach their desired outcome is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.  But then, intellectual dishonesty is the name of the game these days for GQP-dominated courts.  The "judicial activism" they used to rail about is now their bread-and-butter: pick the outcome you want, then torture the reasoning to get there.

[wildcat09 29260]

5 hours ago, scottsins said:

Correct.

I would also point out that the Texas state statutes relevant to this issue MAY not be affected for several reasons.

The UCW statute is most analogous, EXCEPT the underlying PO in Texas requires a finding that family violence has actually occurred (FV includes threats of violence). That requirement is not in the federal statute. This distinction might make a difference since a lot of this opinion focuses on “law abiding citizen”, which a person subject to a Texas PO is arguably not.

Also, there is a Texas criminal law for “violation of a protective order”. Since virtually all Texas protective orders include a prohibition against firearm possession, someone could be prosecuted under that statute.

Using whether a gun law affects "law abiding citizens" is going to get very circular, very quickly.

[Horn Dog 9674]

Furthermore,  the founding fathers didn't even know Rahimi's wife, so how can it be established that killing her is something that our ancestors would disapprove of??

[chainsaw 9838]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The reasoning here on this issue is VERY akin to the reasoning the 5th Circuit uses to perpetually uphold and enforce qualified immunity.

"Yes, there is clearly established law that a cop walking up to a person, saying 'die, scum,' and shooting him in the face, is a violation of constitutional rights.  Well, sort of.   See, that case was about a shooting that happened on a weekday.  And the present case before us happened on a Saturday.  Thus, it was not CLEARLY established that it's a constitutional violation to shoot a dude in the face for no reason on a WEEKEND.  So, the officer retains his qualified immunity."

The nitpickery employed simply to reach their desired outcome is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.  But then, intellectual dishonesty is the name of the game these days for GQP-dominated courts.  The "judicial activism" they used to rail about is now their bread-and-butter: pick the outcome you want, then torture the reasoning to get there.

what is going to happen with QI in the fifth circuit

 

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/06/a-couple-of-fifth-circuit-appeals-court-judges-look-like-they-believe-performing-journalism-is-a-criminal-act/

Edited February 7, 2023 by chainsaw
link

[Brisketexan 104628]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

what is going to happen with QI in the fifth circuit

 

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/06/a-couple-of-fifth-circuit-appeals-court-judges-look-like-they-believe-performing-journalism-is-a-criminal-act/

Heh.  Edith Jones.  To date, the only judge I have made audibly sigh in exasperation while I was arguing a case ( @Ghost of LL couldn't contain his amusement when it happened).  I didn't care -- she was going to do what she was going to do, and I refused to buy into it on the record.

We've got some real issues in the 5th Circuit.

[chainsaw 9838]

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Heh.  Edith Jones.  To date, the only judge I have made audibly sigh in exasperation while I was arguing a case ( @Ghost of LL couldn't contain his amusement when it happened).  I didn't care -- she was going to do what she was going to do, and I refused to buy into it on the record.

We've got some real issues in the 5th Circuit.

Obama should have packed it or abolished it or something.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

Any other court and I'd suspect this is their effort to show just how stupid the Bruen decision was.  But it's the 5th, so they actually believe it. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

Wrong thread

Edited February 8, 2023 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Beau Vine 54004]

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Heh.  Edith Jones.  To date, the only judge I have made audibly sigh in exasperation while I was arguing a case

I find this kinda hard to believe.

[Willfully Horn 7916]

Sickening.