Fifth Circuit strikes down firearms prohibition under domestic violence restraining o

Register to hide this ad
The judges were just following the laws as they are written. However, based on what the plaiuntiff has done, sucks that he is the first case. A real class act.

How does a ruling in one Circuit affect the other court Circuits?
 
Racer X said:
How does a ruling in one Circuit affect the other court Circuits?
Click to expand...

That decision is controlling only in the 5th Circuit.

It may be persuasive for other Circuits or it may establish a conflict between the Circuits which is a reason for the Supreme Court to review the conflict.
 
"Rahimi's home was searched after he was involved in five shootings in a two-month span, including firing at a law enforcement vehicle in December 2020, firing at a driver after getting in a car accident and shooting multiple rounds in the air in January 2021 "after his friend's credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant," the appeals court said."

This is why my grandkids will see the end of the 2nd in their lifetime.
 
Doubt it. Not with America poised to be a majority permitless state nation.

dockmurgw said:
"Rahimi's home was searched after he was involved in five shootings in a two-month span, including firing at a law enforcement vehicle in December 2020, firing at a driver after getting in a car accident and shooting multiple rounds in the air in January 2021 "after his friend's credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant," the appeals court said."

This is why my grandkids will see the end of the 2nd in their lifetime.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dockmurgw said:
"Rahimi's home was searched after he was involved in five shootings in a two-month span, including firing at a law enforcement vehicle in December 2020, firing at a driver after getting in a car accident and shooting multiple rounds in the air in January 2021 "after his friend's credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant," the appeals court said."

This is why my grandkids will see the end of the 2nd in their lifetime.
Click to expand...
What a piece of work. The police had no other cause than a restraining order violation to arrest this person??
 
Sound decision, given the S. Ct. cases.
 
Having worked countless domestic violence cases, some fatal, this one really concerns me.

I confiscated countless firearms during domestic violence incidents due to the level of violence and intensity of emotions. I knew they would be returned, via court order, but I wanted any blood shed to be on the hands of the court, not me, not my troops.

I am a firm believer in the 2A. I have taught countless CCW classes because I feel so strongly about the right to be armed.

But some people just should not have access to firearms. In LE we see that all too often.

'Gun violence' is not a gun problem; it is a people problem.
 
RetCapt said:
Having worked countless domestic violence cases, some fatal, this one really concerns me.

I confiscated countless firearms during domestic violence incidents due to the level of violence and intensity of emotions. I knew they would be returned, via court order, but I wanted any blood shed to be on the hands of the court, not me, not my troops.

I am a firm believer in the 2A. I have taught countless CCW classes because I feel so strongly about the right to be armed.

But some people just should not have access to firearms. In LE we see that all too often.

'Gun violence' is not a gun problem; it is a people problem.
Click to expand...

The Captain is certainly correct, except I would drop the word "gun" and simply state that violence is a people problem.

OTOH, while it is inarguable that in a literal sense some people should not have access to firearms, in a practical and legal sense access to firearms is a right guaranteed to the entire American community and isolating some ne'er-do-well due to his bad acts falls outside that guarantee. Arrest him for his bad acts, penalize him for his bad acts, but removing guaranteed rights is over the top unjustified.

As a part of our very flawed criminal justice system, look how many times this ne'er-do-well misused firearms and was still at home with his guns when the gendarmes came. Why is this *** not in jail for his other violations? Enquiring minds want to know........

This case isn't over, anyway. SCOTUS will hear it for sure because the AG is going after it:

Statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Regarding United States v. Rahimi:

The Justice Department tonight issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland following the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Rahimi.

"Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit's contrary decision."
Click to expand...
 
RetCapt said:
Having worked countless domestic violence cases, some fatal, this one really concerns me.

I confiscated countless firearms during domestic violence incidents due to the level of violence and intensity of emotions. I knew they would be returned, via court order, but I wanted any blood shed to be on the hands of the court, not me, not my troops.

I am a firm believer in the 2A. I have taught countless CCW classes because I feel so strongly about the right to be armed.

But some people just should not have access to firearms. In LE we see that all too often.

'Gun violence' is not a gun problem; it is a people problem.
Click to expand...

I am always amazed at people wanting to take the gun away and leave the violent person. If you take the gun and leave the bad guy, he can still use any number of things around the house to harm someone. But if you take the bad guy and leave the gun, the gun will just sit there and not harm anyone. I think it is like some kind of superstition. The gun most emit evil thought or rays or beams or something to make people do bad things. I totally do not understand this kind of thinking.
 
In response to Waldo:

In any domestic violence incident, short of homicide, the aggressor is going to get out on bail pending court appearances. Even if, as during my years as a night Sergeant and then Command Duty Officer, I had called the on-call magistrate to get the bail raised, because I knew, at some point, under the assumption that emotions had cooled, bail would be lowered and the defendant released.

But I also saw the violently consequential errors of this assumption.

My seizure of the firearms I knew would also be temporary. But I was trying to buy time in the hope that aggressive emotions might diminish. I also wanted to buy time for the victims (which often included children) to have the chance to move out and relocate. Too often though, this was not possible.

So, I took the bad guy along with the gun(s) knowing the bad guy would soon be back and I did not want the gun to be there for (almost always) him.

I was trying to buy time, and with it, life. That is all there was to it.

Given how specific I was in my initial post, as well as this one, I should not be included as a subject of any far reaching generalizations, as Waldo's did, without factual basis.

I can't be any more clear than that.
 
Last edited:
The opinion suggests that Rahimi was convicted in state court of offenses related to the actual violent acts he committed and was sentenced to prison, since the sentence on the Fed charge was to be consecutive to those terms. However the Tarrant County Court shows him scheduled for a status conference on 02/23 for 3 counts of Agg. Assault with a Deadly Weapon and one each of Possession of less than 1 gram of a Controlled Substance and Deadly Conduct, Discharge Firearm at an Individual.

This decision only affects the tacked on Fed charge for possession of firearms while subject to a protective order.

When the FVPA was passed in the 80s I was concerned about where the well intentioned decision to allow for warrantless arrest of a citizen in (usually) his home for a misdemeanor not committed in the officer's presence on bare accusation without evidence would lead.

Like the Capt., I had dealt with enough violent domestic incidents to appreciate the danger to the victims. I probably also bent the statutes a bit to give an emotionally charged situation a chance to dissipate. Emphasis on a temporary action during the heat of the moment rather than a prolonged deprivation of rights. Sort of like handcuffing someone combative and releasing them without charges once they cooled down. I never had to defend those decision in court, but I was prepared to.

I had also seen enough examples of the brutalized victim refusing to prosecute, including one woman who came down to post bond for the boyfriend who had shot her in the chest with a .30-30 as soon as she was out of surgery and another who begged us to release the boyfriend who had just raped her 18 month old daughter.

Like most attempts to legislatively prevent bad people from doing bad things instead of penalizing them when they have done them, one failed good intention would lead to the ante being upped. Rinse and repeat.

This may put a damper on the current "red flag" proposals which experience indicates will be long on "abundance of caution" and short on due process. At least it may require a serious discussion of the laws before they are enacted, but I wouldn't bet on it. Good intentions are still the favored paving material on the road to perdition.
 
Last edited:
RetCapt said:
In response to Waldo:

In any domestic violence incident, short of homicide, the aggressor is going to get out on bail pending court appearances. Even if, as during my years as a night Sergeant and then Command Duty Officer, I had called the on-call magistrate to get the bail raised, because I knew, at some point, under the assumption that emotions had cooled, bail would be lowered and the defendant released.

But I also saw the violently consequential errors of this assumption.

My seizure of the firearms I knew would also be temporary. But I was trying to buy time in the hope that aggressive emotions might diminish. I also wanted to buy time for the victims (which often included children) to have the chance to move out and relocate. Too often though, this was not possible.

So, I took the bad guy along with the gun(s) knowing the bad guy would soon be back and I did not want the gun to be there for (almost always) him.

I was trying to buy time, and with it, life. That is all there was to it.

Given how specific I was in my initial post, as well as this one, I should not be included as a subject of any far reaching generalizations, as Waldo's did, without factual basis.

I can't be any more clear than that.
Click to expand...

I am not a policemen, and have had none of the experiences of the Ret. Captain. But my watching of this issue for many years leads me to believe that the people that are interested in taking every gun away from every body will lie, omit facts and seize any excuse to achieve their goal. Each law will be passed with the intention of "preventing" some specific type of crime. There will always be someone who may not favor disarming all citizens, but will think in this particular instance it is justified. So, one law at a time it becomes harder and harder for citizens to own guns. The list of prohibited persons gets bigger and bigger. One of the laws proposed in the VA. Legislature a few years ago would have subjected people that had a dating relationship to red flag laws. I guess if you took someone out and said or did something they did not like, they could file a complaint and you would lose your guns. There was an instance in MD. a few years ago where the police went to take someone's guns and ended up shooting him. I will also wager that every time the police seize someone's guns it will be used as an example of how effective the law is, so we need to expand it. Because if only one life is saved, it's worth it.
I also fail to understand why the same people that push red flag laws are also the people that push for reducing bail and lighter prison sentances. The criminal will be back on the street, while the gun is still locked up. It still seems like either a primitive superstition or a deliberate attempt to disarm the population to me.
I do not mean to offend anyone, but that is what I think.
 
Waldo,

I concur with your observations. As my bio indicates, I live in CA, so I am a witness to the blatant attempts of the CA Governor and legislature to nullify the 2A. I am also a victim because of the various firearms I am precluded from buying solely due to being a CA resident.

With two very recent 'mass' (but more accurately multiple) shootings the Governor is again pushing for additional restrictive legislation. What he is proposing has absolutely nothing to do with those two incidents, and would not have prevented either. That is how CA and other liberal states think. I believe the various blue states are in a horse race with one another to achieve bragging rights as to which state is the most restrictive.

All of which, if one reads either or both of my submissions with reasonable attention, has nothing to do with me and what I was doing at that time for the sole purpose of buying time to hopefully protect lives. There is just no nexus.

My objection is anyone trying to use the narrow and specific scope of my post(s) as a jumping off point to venture into unrelated broad generalizations.
 
I find it incredibly hypocritical that one political party will accuse the other party of doing anything, legal or not, to get there way, all the while they are doing it themselves. Like passing laws they know will be overturned, and are outright illegal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bushmaster1313
Siegel v. Platkin — Why we support the NRA (and never bash it in public)
Replies
3
Views
2K
bushmaster1313
bushmaster1313
R
NomMore Nationwide Injunctions…
Replies
2
Views
177
Rocketmedic40
R
RM Vivas
HD/O's as a collecting goal
Replies
17
Views
1K
raljr1
R
bushmaster1313
Challenge to recent New Jersey anti carry law - Update July 14
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Bald1
Bald1
bushmaster1313
NJ 10+ Magazine Ban ANJRPC v. Bruck Update 9/21/2022
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
venomballistics
venomballistics

Latest posts

Back
Top