U. S. District Judge David Counts Strikes Again

[swsig]

Judge Counts, who recently ruled that those under felony indictment could not be prohibited from purchasing firearms, has now ruled that those under a judge's protective order cannot be deprived of their right to own a gun. Here is the article:

Judge: Disarming those under protective orders is constitutional violation | The Texas Tribune

Appeals are likely to follow.

 

[SAFireman]

Well, I guess he believes in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

And, I'll add that I don't typically agree with ex parte hearings separating a citizen from his/her property & freedoms....something just seems wrong with that in general.

 

[glowe]

Well, I guess he believes in 'Innocent until proven guilty'?

And, I'll add that I don't typically agree with ex parte hearings separating a citizen from his/her property & freedoms....something just seems wrong with that in general.

Perhaps you should ask the victims of domestic abuse it they agree with you!!!!!!!

With 90% of women murders being done by a male they know, why not make it easier for domestic abusers to kill more women. Protective orders are not perfect, and will be adjudicated, but what happens between the issuance of the order and the court outcome remains appalling.

Many facts have dictated the temporary removal of firearms owned by abusers, and remember that a judge has already ruled that the abuser has committed violence against their partner. A couple that hit home are:

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime.

19% of domestic violence involves a weapon.

 

[URIT]

Putting guns in the hands of people who have demonstrated poor communication skills by needing violence to make their point has me a bit concerned.

That said, I appreciate a judge who actually understands the constitution and uses it to make decisions rather than trying to dismantle our constitution like so many recent appointees to the bench.

 

[Pef]

I'm looking for a link to the order.

Journalism is pretty much dead today - the source material is out there, but these stories rarely link to it. If I find it I'll post it.


Edit: Here you go.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1177458/gov.uscourts.txwd.1177458.55.0.pdf

 

[fmflorida]

Its nice to see a judge who actually understands the Constitution and rules in a legally sound manner.

While I do see the concerns some have stated about "how about the victim".....

The "victim" is more than welcome to also purchase a firearm and take the appropriate training or classes to defend themselves.

We can not circumvent or flat out ignore the Constitution and its protections simply due to "feelings" or the hope that eventually you can get rights back, that you never should have lost, due to a false allegation.

 

[Pef]

Perhaps you should ask the victims of domestic abuse it they agree with you!!!!!!!

With 90% of women murders being done by a male they know, why not make it easier for domestic abusers to kill more women. Protective orders are not perfect, and will be adjudicated, but what happens between the issuance of the order and the court outcome remains appalling.

Many facts have dictated the temporary removal of firearms owned by abusers, and remember that a judge has already ruled that the abuser has committed violence against their partner. A couple that hit home are:

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime.

19% of domestic violence involves a weapon.

While all of the above may be true, what does that have to do with the constitutional framework for second amendment analysis?

The order is here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1177458/gov.uscourts.txwd.1177458.55.0.pdf

It's rather lengthy and I haven't finished it yet, but the Judge is construing the second amendment as he is required to do under Bruen.

There is a reason why we do not ask victims to determine the scope of constitutional protections.

I am not trying to be argumentative or pick a thread fight. But this is the fallout of Bruen. Policy arguments based on emotion are the reasons there are 10 day waiting periods, 10 round magazine limits, etc., etc.

 

[SAFireman]

Perhaps you should ask the victims of domestic abuse it they agree with you!!!!!!!

With 90% of women murders being done by a male they know, why not make it easier for domestic abusers to kill more women. Protective orders are not perfect, and will be adjudicated, but what happens between the issuance of the order and the court outcome remains appalling.

Many facts have dictated the temporary removal of firearms owned by abusers, and remember that a judge has already ruled that the abuser has committed violence against their partner. A couple that hit home are:

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime.

19% of domestic violence involves a weapon.

Gary,

I do not disagree that we have a violence problem. Unfortunately, humans are animals, and animals are violent.

I have seen DV issues up-close and personal in my tenure at the FD. There are no winners. There are larger societal issues that nobody seems intent on solving.

Since this is a 2a thread, I'll leave that debate for another time. Both parties have the same rights under our constitution, and no activist judge, lying party, or outside influence(s) should interfere with the law as written.

If the PD thinks that one party is an immediate danger to the other (or themselves), then they should take that party immediately before a judge or medical professional. All are entitled to equal protection under the law.

 

[Paul in Nevada]

Perhaps you should ask the victims of domestic abuse it they agree with you!!!!!!!

If we lived under a system where emotional appeals dictated policy it would be chaos.

 

[John Patrick]

Perhaps you should ask the victims of domestic abuse it they agree with you!!!!!!!

With 90% of women murders being done by a male they know, why not make it easier for domestic abusers to kill more women. Protective orders are not perfect, and will be adjudicated, but what happens between the issuance of the order and the court outcome remains appalling.

Many facts have dictated the temporary removal of firearms owned by abusers, and remember that a judge has already ruled that the abuser has committed violence against their partner. A couple that hit home are:

The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.

Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime.

19% of domestic violence involves a weapon.

Why not just adhere to the Constitution?

Innocent until proven guilty.

FWIW, I have several friends whose prior wives tried to neuter their 2nd Amendment rights and claim a bigger divorce settlement by claiming domestic abuse. Everyone of them defeated the effort, but it costs a s—t ton of both money and time. How ‘bout the guys that have neither. Innocent until proven guilty solves this dilemma.

ETA: Expedite cases, that would also be in line with the Constitution.

 

[glowe]

Why not just adhere to the Constitution?

Innocent until proven guilty . . .

Because the victim might be dead before the 6 month wait until the trial starts.

Temporary removal of firearms for a domestic abuse suspect is the right thing to do to protect the victims. Once the case is settled, and if the charged person is found not guilty, those rights should be restored.

 

[444 Magnum]

Removal of a firearm will not stop domestic violence/abuse. While a firearm may be the weapon of choice, there are plenty more "weapons" to be found.

Look at the recent murders with a K-bar.

England and Wales have strict gun control laws but had over 43,500 knife attacks in 2019.

Innocent until proven guilty. Possession until proven guilty.

I'm not defending scumbags, just the 2nd amendment.

 

[John Patrick]

Because the victim might be dead before the 6 month wait until the trial starts.

Temporary removal of firearms for a domestic abuse suspect is the right thing to do to protect the victims. Once the case is settled, and if the charged person is found not guilty, those rights should be restored.

You have the cart before the horse in several instances.

“Restore” a fundamental Constitutional right to an innocent citizen? How about not infringing on that right in the first place?

“Victim” assumes the guilt of the accused who has not been tried or found guilty.

If six months is too long, speed up the trial. Speedy trials are in conformity with and an integral part of the Constitution.

 

[JDinAZ]

Judge Counts, who recently ruled that those under felony indictment could not be prohibited from purchasing firearms, has now ruled that those under a judge's protective order cannot be deprived of their right to own a gun. Here is the article:

Judge: Disarming those under protective orders is constitutional violation | The Texas Tribune

Appeals are likely to follow.

Shall not be infringed is about as clear as it gets



From Heller
Cite as: 554 U. S. 2, 3 (2008)

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be under­ stood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.



From Heller
Cite as: 554 U. S. 62, 63 (2008)
Opinion of the Court
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insist­ ing upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibi­ tion of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43

Same cited again below in Bruen
refering to cite in Heller, which cite i Heller is from
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43

NYSRPA v. BRUEN
Cite as: 597 U. S. 14 (2022)
“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its use- fulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

The "victim" is more than welcome to also purchase a firearm and take the appropriate training or classes to defend themselves.

Therein lies the rub. (Hamlet) Victim mentality often includes fear of weapons. America being the most armed country in the world, if we taught the use of handguns say, in high school, maybe we'd have less victims? Merely speculating "out loud".

Well she finally got the nerve to file for divorce
She let the law take it from there
But Earl walked right through that restraining order
And put her in intensive care

(c) Dennis Linde (and maybe the Dixie Chicks)

Abusers often don't care about protective orders - an obvious and quite serious problem.

 

[WCCPHD]

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

― Benjamin Franklin

 

[Racer X]

Because the victim might be dead before the 6 month wait until the trial starts.

Temporary removal of firearms for a domestic abuse suspect is the right thing to do to protect the victims. Once the case is settled, and if the charged person is found not guilty, those rights should be restored.

where is the requirement that the firearms be stored properly, and returned in exactly the same condition as when confiscated? No etching or stamping case numbers, or any handling except by a designated property clerk?

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

There is a reason why we do not ask victims to determine the scope of constitutional protections.

I am not trying to be argumentative or pick a thread fight. But this is the fallout of Bruen. Policy arguments based on emotion are the reasons there are 10 day waiting periods, 10 round magazine limits, etc., etc.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Waldo]

I can't understand the logic of taking the gun away but leaving the "bad" guy out wondering around. It smacks of some primitive superstition. If the "bad" guy is so bad, why not lock him up? What is to stop him from killing someone with any of a multitude of potential weapons? Just off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of things in the average house that could be used by the "bad" guy to kill the innocent victim. But I guess the thinking is the same as "gun free" zones. If we take the "evil" gun away, the "bad" guy will just leave us alone. But at least we have taken the cause of the crime, the evil gun away. I guess the "evil spirits" in the gun will be frustrated. It amazes me that this is even a subject on a gun collector forum.

 

[LVSteve]

Gary,

I do not disagree that we have a violence problem. Unfortunately, humans are animals, and animals are violent.

Nice to find somebody these days who shares my clarity of thought on the naked ape.