Bruen 2.0? Fifth Circuit Rules Against Biden Administration on Barring Gun Possession in Domestic Violence Case

There is a major ruling this week in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where a three-judge panel ruled unanimously in United States v. Rahimi that the federal bar on gun possession for individuals under a domestic violence restraining order violates the Second Amendment. The opinion is most notable for its exploration of the historical analogues supporting the rule, as required under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The case also relied on a dissenting opinion in an appellate case, Kanter v. Barr, by then Judge Amy Coney Barrett, which I discussed during her nomination.

There is already a dog pile on social media as critics denounced the 5th Circuit as the nation’s “Trumpiest” and “exceedingly reactionary” court (as opposed to reasonably reactionary?). In reality, the opinion does not reject the underlying goal or even rule out a bar on gun possession in such cases. Indeed, the panel expressly states that “[t]he question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal. The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The Fifth Circuit rejected a novel and sweeping interpretation by the Biden Administration that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals deemed “dangerous” by the government. The DOJ relied upon the Court references in Heller and Bruen to “law-abiding citizens” but the panel noted that the Court used those references to say that there could be limits on the right and that its decision should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” It further noted:

Perhaps most importantly, the Government’s proffered interpretation lacks any true limiting principle. Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “non-law abiding” people—however expediently defined—from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the Second Amendment’s protections; to the contrary, the Supreme Court has made clear that “the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal….

The panel does a deep dive on the historical analogues used by the Justice Department that is worth reading.

I was struck, however, by the reliance on the dissenting opinion in Kanter. In that opinion, the appellate court was dealing with the removal of guns from a person convicted of one count of felony mail fraud for defrauding Medicare in connection with therapeutic shoe inserts. Barrett rejected the categorical exclusion of such individuals:

In my view, the latter is the better way to approach the problem. It is one thing to say that certain weapons or activities fall outside the scope of the right. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008) (explaining that “the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (citation omitted)); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 2017) (Ezell II) (“[I]f … the challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the right as originally understood, then ‘the regulated activity is categorically unprotected, and the law is not subject to further Second Amendment review.’” (citation omitted)); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 702 (7th Cir. 2011) (Ezell I) (drawing an analogy between categories of speech, like obscenity, that fall outside the First Amendment and activities that fall outside the Second Amendment). It is another thing to say that certain people fall outside the Amendment’s scope. Arms and activities would always be in or out. But a person could be in one day and out the next: the moment he was convicted of a violent crime or suffered the onset of mental illness, his rights would be stripped as a self-executing consequence of his new status. No state action would be required.

The Rahimi case could offer Barrett a perfect opportunity to finish her work in Kanter in laying out more clearly this distinction.

Notably, not only are there other major Fifth Circuit opinions under the Second Amendment, the case could join other major cases working their way up to the Court from the Third Circuit and Second Circuit that could be heading to the Supreme Court if there is an interest in Bruen 2.0.

109 thoughts on “Bruen 2.0? Fifth Circuit Rules Against Biden Administration on Barring Gun Possession in Domestic Violence Case”

  1. the Feds have a law saying that if you were convicted of domestic violence anywhere in the USA, no matter how ununiform the laws are, is grounds to deny you gun ownership forever. Is this law now unconstitutional ?

  2. Lets see, now, Turley cites a DISSENT from that ultra-conservative and widely-disrespected hag, Barrett, whose SCOTUS nomination he supported as proof of some “victory” of justice over the Biden Administration? AND, this is coming from the Fifth Circuit, notorious for upholding civil rights violations. Uh, Turley, why don’t you discuss all of the rulings the fat hog lost just in this past week? We all know why–that’s not on the assignment list. Those of us with a brain also understand that a substantial number of murders happen to victims, mostly women, who obtained restraining orders against a significant other in domestic violence cases, which is the reason for firearms restrictions–to save lives. The prohibition only comes after a judge determines that the perpetrator poses a threat to the victim. But, now, we’re in the sad reallity of Republcian losers in Congress actually wearing lapel pins in the shape of assault rifles that have only the purpose of killing the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time.. And, Turley is gleefully hoping that this hag “continue her work” by the SCOTUS taking up more such cases. You stink, Turley, as a so-called legal expert but also as a person.

    1. “ultra-conservative and widely-disrespected hag”
      By who?
      Surely not by those who call themself progressive, inclusive non-hatefull people on the left like .. ergggg.. you?

    2. FREEDOM IS SCARY, DEAL WITH IT! Otherwise make it to a lib utopia like Canada or New Zealand where all of you ideas have flourished so well. JUVENTUS LIVES THRU MASON & HENRY!

    3. Ex parte Milligan 1866 cleared up any question about our our an alienable rights in the constitution, including the second amendment with a unanimous ruling. In the ruling SCOTUS stated the following;
      “ that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.”

    4. If you disagree with the Second Amendment – which is clear in its statement – then the correct course is to seek to Amend the Constitution, not to try to find arbitrary vague ideas on how to neutralize citizen’s Constitutional Rights. The Bill of Rights means what it says unless what it says is amended. End of story.

        1. That is not a requirement. It is a justification clause.
          I would further note that the Founders assumed the well regulated militia” was all men over 16.

            1. If your understanding was accepted by those who wrote those words, why was your question never raised until long after the Bill of Rights was written?

                1. If you understand the question then you are saying gun nuts wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That would mean you don’t understand our history.

                  What is nutty about having a gun?

                    1. You don’t seem to understand the numbers.

                      Put a sign on your house saying gun free zone.

                    2. ” am not scared enough to want a man-killer. Are you?”

                      I see you turned your testosterone dial to high. High testosterone levels and high heels can be elevating for one whose masculinity is under challenge.

                      Do you drive a car?

                    3. I can see that, but overdosing on testosterone at 78 doesn’t change the fact you are 78. It can make you lethal driving a car.

              1. An individual right to bear arms was first recognized by the Supreme Court in its 2008 Heller 5-4 opinion written by Scalia. Before that, a common belief was that there was only a collective right to bear arms that is reflected in the Heller dissent and comments made by Justice Burger over the years.

                1. No, Concerned. The right to bear arms existed before the Amendments were printed. Check out the Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments, and you will find the right to bear arms was an excepted fact.

                    1. Turn your testosterone levels down a notch, take off your high heeled shoes, and read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

                    2. “Sounds like I got to you.”

                      Things sound different when you inject so much testosterone. You didn’t get me, you got yourself. When your testosterone levels fall, start reading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. They will provide a bit of education you never received.

                2. “Before [Heller], a common belief was that there was only a collective right to bear arms . . .”

                  That is false.

                  In the nineteenth century, it was widely held that 2A is an *individual* right. And there is ample scholarship on that topic.

            2. Apparently, YOU do not understand what “well-regulated” meant and means. What it does NOT mean is structured like our current military. Members of the militia were supposed to have their own firearms in working order.

              1. We had no standing army at the time, and needed weapons from the separate state militias.
                Stop perverting it into permission for gun nuts to have assault weapons.

                1. An “assault weapon” is a select fire firearm, i.e. Safe, single shot, fully automatic or 3rnd burst.
                  The only people whom can posses those firearms outside of the military or LEO are those who go through the process to get that level license, the secure facilities, and pay the tax stamp.
                  The idea there are “assault weapons” widely owned by millions of Americans is false.

                  1. I know what my M-16 could do ion the service, and your non-assault weapon uses the same bullets, which tear up flesh. Why do you have some psychological need for these?

                    1. Why don’t you move to Commie China or the UK where the citizens have no Rights left like here in the US.

                      You just need to go be a Slave there.

                    2. Actually, no, I would not shoot 55grn 5.56NATO, nor 62grn 5.56NATO which is what the military was using at that time. More likely 77grn OT match. So, no those are not the same bullets as you say.
                      All bullets “tear up flesh.” That is what they are designed to do. From hollow points to ball FMJ, to match.
                      I have no psychological need for any given bullet. I use the right bullet for the right need.
                      Self-defense, hollow point, 00buckshot.
                      Hunting, some kind of premium bullet to deliver the most humane kill.
                      Target, match grade.

                      In the end, it is not the firearm, nor is it the bullet. It is the person behind the stock that squeezes the trigger.
                      Law abiding gun owners exercise their 2ndA rights. They are not a threat to society.
                      Criminals, generally in possession of firearms (note, most gun violence is committed with a handgun, not a AR15) illegally (i.e. they are criminals) are not law abiding and are a threat to society.
                      Also of note, where gun violence is most prevalent, is in large cities. Mostly Democrat controlled cities. For that matter, recently 11 US cities with Democrat mayors made the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world.

                2. You seem to think that the entire country was Williamsburg.

                  In 1776 everywhere but the south nearly everyone privately owned guns. In many states every free person over 16 was required to by law.

                  One of the reasons driving the Heller and McDonald decisions that resulted in striking down modern gun laws, is the scholarship that debunked claims like yours about 18th Century US.

                  Historians went back and examined bacnkruptcy records, wills, auctions – and found that nearly everyone owned a gun.
                  They checked laws and found that most everyone was required to.

                  They went back and examined the writings of our founders – particularly state governments regarding militias and found that they were not the equivalent of the national guard and they did not for the most part obtain firearms from armories.

                  I would note that this went far beyond just muskets. Cannon were frequently privately owned – and BTW still are today.

                  The “AR-15” of the 18th century – still in production through the 19th century was the “pensylvania/Kentucky” rifle – accurate to 300yd, when military muskets were only good to 100yd.

                  In Many Revolutionary conflicts this proved decisive. British Troop movements were severely hampered anywhere that Colonists could fire at ranges of 200-300 yds, and then break into hiding, reload and setup again. Colonists targeted british NCO’s and Officers at distances that Muskets were unusable.

                  The Pensylvania rifle was also the standard hunting rifle of the era.

                3. The perversion is entirely yours.

                  The reason that 2nd amendment law is changing is because we are bothering to look back at the writings of colonists in the 18th and early 19th century and learning YOU claims are Full of Schiff.

                  1. They were supposed to have weapons then because they were in a “Well-Regulated (state) Militia”
                    It says nothing about unregulated folk owning machine guns.

                    1. At the time of 1776, no one owned machine guns.
                      What they did own were the at the time equivalent of a AR15, a rifled barrel firearm, and as John Say notes, superior to smooth bores in accuracy.
                      At that time, “Well-Regulated (state) Militia” meant everyone in the militia, has their own rifle. The state did not provide one. If a militia was called up, they were expected to show up with their rifle, shot and powder. Once they used up their own shot and powered (which they were expected to be paid for) the state would then provide additional shot and powered as needed.
                      The 2ndA also states, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

                    2. At the time of the revolution there was not a weapon made that private individuals did not own.

                      Firearms was one of the distinctions between Europe and the colonies.

                      In Europe you were a noble – and owned firearms. A peasan and did not own your own home much less firearms, or in the merchant class likely in the city and did not own firearms.

                      In the colonies Nearly everyone was well off enough to own firearms.

                      We also forget that the colonists traded firearms to the indians.
                      And quite quickly the indians became both proficient and learn which firearms were better.

                      One of Custers problems at Little Big horn was that he was out gunned.
                      He left his Gattling behind and faced Sitting Bull with revolvers and springfeilds, While the Indians had repeating rifles.

                    3. Perfectly relevant.

                      When the 2nd Amendment was crafted, no weapons were excepted.

                    4. Ad Hominem

                      Are you capable of an argument that is not a fallacy ?

                      I do not own any firearms of any kind.

                      That does not allow me to force my choices on others.

                    5. You do not seem to know how to make an argument.

                      When you say “X is irrelevant” – that is a piss poor argument when X is obviously relevant

                      If you beleive that the 2nd amendment was too broad, that our founders could not have contemplated machine guns or the changes of the modern world – they provided for that.

                      Amend the constitution.

                    6. Again please return to grammar school. The militia clause is independent. It is a justification. It is not inherently the only justification.

                      If that helps you in logic it is an implication.
                      Implications are ONE WAY.

                      This is all basic grammar and logic.

                      The fist amendment, and in fact most all of the rest of the constitution has NO Justifications.

                      Does the absence of justification mean those rights can be vitiated for any reason ?

                    7. If you wish to be treated as an intelligent person, make your arguments as if you are one.

                      Formal Fallacies: Denying the antecedent

                      If A is true, then B is true.
                      A is false.
                      Therefore, B is false.”

                    8. It says nothing about cannons – and yet provate people owned cannons.

                      Colt patented the first popular Revolver in 1836 – that was the first wide spread semi-automatic firearm.
                      Though there were multi shot weapons as far back as the 15th century.
                      I would note that even according to current law a gattling gun – which has rates of fire equal to a machine gun is LEGAL, without special licensing, So long as you must continuously crank it to sustain fire.

                      I noted SOME of the reasons those of you on the left are in a losing fight.
                      Another is because it is increasingly easy to make your own firearms.
                      We have come a long way from the Liberator – a single shot plastic gun made on a 3d printer.

                      For about $1000 you can buy a CNC machine and crank out 1911 Colts to your hearts content.

                      There is nothing the government can do to stop this.
                      And it is stupid to try.

                      AR-15’s can also be made out of plastic that survive about 100 rounds before self destructing.
                      With a CNC you can make an AR-15 with no serial number.

                      And I am sure that on the dark web you can find CNC files for M16’s and other “machine guns”.

                      Put simply the genie is out of the bottle – you can not stop it.

                      Generally the efforts of government to thwart people, just make things worse.

                      Ordinary people would not have sought out machine guns – but for Prohibition
                      Which brought us organized crime.

                      The government shut down Silk Road – so now we have Fentanyl coming from China over the southern border.

                      It does not matter what we are talking about,
                      Guns, alcohol, drugs, sex.

                      If people want it they are going to get it.

                      Go back to the Social Contract, the legitimate rule of law.

                      Punish people for doing things that Harm OTHERS.

                      But out of their private lives – they are none of your business

                    9. And yet you continue to insist that you are entitled to tell everyone else how to run their lives.

                      If you “outgrew” guns – then let go.

                      I do not care if you want to play with AR-15’s or Silk Panties,
                      that is your business.

                      What others do is theirs.
                      You are no more entitled to tell them what toys they are free to play with
                      Than they are to tell you.

                4. If you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers you would recognize that #2’s existence entered the picture as an intellectual compromise which implicitly permitted the federal government to have exclusive control over the army but implicitly prevented the disarming of the civilian population. You can consider it a balance of power.

                  An armed public was accepted from the start of the nation. You and concerned have been caught trying to change history.

            1. The constituton does not change because congress later decides to create a standing army.

              That is like saying – DHS created a “Ministry of Truth” – we no longer need the first amendment.

              Why do you huggers pervert the amendment?

              How many quotes do you want from the founders that one of the purposes of the right to bear arms we to overthrow the government if necescary ?

              Or there is this
              “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,”

              Do you think that Adam’s Jefferson, and Franklin thought we were going to alter or abolish it using pitchforks ?

                1. George, they ACTUALLY used Guns.

                  Nowhere in the Declaration of independence does it reference VOTING.

                  Even the constitution itself has very few references to voting.

                  Our founders were not stupid. They understood that democracy nor representative government was not inherently protective of individual rights.

                  In fact as John Stuart Mill noted about 50 years after the revolution – no form of government is more prone to tyranny than democracy.

                2. The most important reason that people need guns, is because of those like you who want to take them away.

                3. Why is it that you are demanding to control whether others can posses guns ?

                  More people OD on fantanyl each day than are killed by Guns.
                  More people are dying of Covid.
                  More people are dying of Cancer.
                  More people die from alcohol each year – how well did prohibition work ?

                  And how is it that you think that “gun control” is actually going to work ?

                  There are about 350M guns in the US.
                  If 0.4% of those with guns resist turning them in – you will have more deaths than from Covid in trying to confiscate them.

                  It is typical of left wing nuts to propose what is not possible.

                  What is self evident is that you do not know what you are talking about.
                  Not about the constitution,
                  Not about guns.

                  What you want is to impose YOUR idiotic idea of utopia on everyone else – without giving the slightest thought of how you arrive there or even what kind of hell it would actually be if you succeeded.

                  In an average year in the 21st century about 33 people are killed in mass shootings.

                  In chicago they call that an average weekend for murders.

    5. You not only have a problem with historical facts but also your perception of the human body. Fat? Hag? Let me guess. You’re a very frustrated liberal democrat.

    1. I am still wondering how the systemically oppressed, aggrieved, and unemployed driver could spring for a Lexus while I exercise my WP in a 10 year old Chevy with cloth seats.

    1. It doesn’t affect that at all. If a felon is caught with a gun he has violated a criminal statute which has historical roots. If the gang banger uses a gun in a crime, same outcome.

  3. Just to lighten things up here today, here is a true story:
    Several years ago, I purchased two very powerful BB pistol guns for myself and my sister. To gauge the effectiveness to repel or stop an intruder, I told her to shoot me in the tusche (buttocks) so I could test the FPS effectiveness/pain factor. I walked several feet away, turned my back toward her, and tightened my gluteus maximus muscles, then said, “OK, shoot.” All of a sudden, my left ear lobe was wiggling/vibrating, like dingaling-aling-aling-aling. (No blood/no open wound…) That, as they say, was the end of that.

    1. Does your traumatic brain injury cause you to qualify for disability benefits? Sorry…well, not really, but you served up this one. Couldn’t resist.

      1. I don’t know..
        How did it work out for you as you seem to be the most experience one with a serious brain injury ..
        Did it work out for you?

        Does it pay well?

      2. Gigi: I don’t know of anyone who has his/her brain located in an ear lobe, left or right.
        However, it might have affected my ability to listen to or appreciate information coming from the left….
        “Sorry…well, not really, but you served up this one. Couldn’t resist.”

  4. Time will tell, but based on Bruen itself and the the lower court decisions since, it seems the Supreme Court has established a framework/standard that no Federal or State law can meet — courts do not appear satisfied with the historical examples cited or parts of earlier opinions cited.

    1. The SCOTUS that we have now, with outsized influence due to someone who cheated his way into office, aided and abetted by McConnell, who denied a lawfully-elected POTUS his choice of nominee, seemingly has never heard of the bedrock principle of stare decisis. The current SCOTUS has the lowest level of support in history, and several of its members are compromised. Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh all lied about their position on Roe if an abortion case came up. So did Alito, who is the one who most likely leaked the Dobbs decision. Thomas and Roberts seemingly never heard of judicial ethics. Thomas’s wife was directly involved in the insurrection and now, we find out thar Roberts’ wife works for a lawyer employment placement firm and has made millions by placing lawyers in firms whose business very heavily involves SCOTUS cases. It doesn’t take a legal ethics expert to realize that the more successful that firm is, the more fees it generates, and that this creates a legal ethics problem for Roberts..

      1. “who cheated his way into office”
        I did not know that Biden “Quid Pro Quo”, a.k.a the 10% Big Guy was playing a part here?
        If not: why mentioning him here?

  5. This case is baffling.

    Is the Court’s decision that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional? Or is it that the Biden administration’s *interpretation* of that statute is unconstitutional? (As in this paragraph: “The Fifth Circuit rejected a novel and sweeping interpretation by the Biden Administration . . .”)

    If the former, then I don’t understand the Court’s reasoning (which I read, some cursory, some carefully, albeit from a lay perspective). That statute strikes me as perfectly clear, limited, and reasonable.

    If the latter, then anti-2A types have shot themselves in the foot. They tried to expand the plain language of that statute into a rationalization to seize guns from anyone the government deems “dangerous.”

    Whatever the interpretation of the Court’s decision, this seems to be an instance of: “Hard cases make bad law.”

    1. Sam, the court decided both things.

      1. First, it concluded that Rahimi was protected by the 2A. To do so, it rejected the Government’s argument that the 2A did not apply to anyone considered dangerous. The Government relied on language in Heller (law abiding, responsible citizens) and Bruen (ordinary, law abiding citizens) to argue that because Rahimi was dangerous, he had no 2A rights. The court did not accept this.

      2. Having concluded that Rahimi was covered by the 2A, it then considered whether the provisions of this particular statute were within the historical tradition of removing the right to the possession of firearms. Here the question was whether there were convincing analogies to the statute’s criminalisation of possession by anyone subject to a domestic restraining order obtained through a civil proceeding. The Government proffered three kinds of historical regulation as being analogous, because they arguably removed the right to keep and bear arms from people considered dangerous, and the court discussed and rejected all three.

      So the court thus held that Rahimi had 2A rights even though he might be considered dangerous, and this particular statute was not a constitutional limitation on them.

      1. Thanks Daniel — your legal explanation and analysis for this case and other cases and legal issues is much appreciated and helpful to this blog.

      2. Thanks, D, for weighing in. I was hoping you would.

        The Court’s conclusions and reasoning are now much clearer to me.

        I gather that “2.” hinges on this: that Rahimi was subjected to “a civil proceeding.” And that that is why the Court was concerned about the administration’s expansive use of “dangerous.”

        Am I right to conclude that the Court’s decision has no affect on *criminal* proceedings?

        1. There were a variety of reasons that led the court to reject each of the three types of analogous regulations the Government proposed. I would say that there being a civil rather than a criminal proceeding involved here was an important part of the background to the court’s reasoning in 1 but was not really part of its discussion in 2.

          The court noted that Heller referred explicitly to convicted felons (and the mentally ill) as being traditional categories of people subject to regulation despite the 2A. So in that sense, it seemed to recognise that someone convicted of a crime would be in a different position from someone adjudicated in a mere civil proceeding.

        2. I do not know the specifics of Rhami.

          But gun confiscation from Domestic conflicts often does not even have a civil proceeding.

          An alleged victim makes a sworn claim of abuse and the court issues a protection order. Violating that order is civil and sometimes criminal contempt. Violation can be as simple as making a phone call.

          Regardless, on entering the initial order the alleged abuser must turn over their guns to law enforcement.

          This is all BEFORE any hearing takes place.

          There is an undebateable need to protect those who are targets of violence.
          But the current process in many states has many flaws and abuses of individual rights.

          1. The court said in a footnote that it was not considering the validity of the restraining order, which itself prohibited Rahimi from possessing guns. The case was only about the constitutionality of the federal statute, which made it a crime for anyone to have guns if he or she was subject to a certain kind of domestic restraining order.

  6. BIDEN ADMIN loses AGAIN. They come up with a lot of inventive or NOVEL ideas on the Law, coming from the Left Wing Radical Lawyers and Social Justice Groups who look through Rose Colored Glasses as what they believe the law should be and not on Real Case Law over time.

    1. Speaking of freedoms, given our constitution, if we have the right to travel, isn’t it a violation of them to lock someone up?

  7. Totalitarians (read: modern liberals) will never cease in their attacks on the 1st and 2nd – barring checks and balances, they are all that keeps them, well . . . in check. Couldn’t be a better time for this to be going through the courts, and your average lo-fo dem voter who still thinks Biden is JFK (he’s actually part of a globalist cabal that in its hubris is shocked you aren’t grateful they have coopted your pesky freedom) and non-dems were the plantation owners (we were actually the poor immigrants back then, and often little more than slaves ourselves) will never understand this.

    I have had convos with lifelong libs in their golden years that honestly believe you are either a dem, or you are a racist, murdering, Cletus. Oftentimes followed by a completely racist tirade on their part, the lack of awareness is gobsmacking. A lifetime of hate and venom absolutely radiates off of such people, and no one is ever going to change their minds. The 1st and 2nd ensure that isn’t a universally determining factor, and they can’t stand it.

    1. Biden is no JFK. JFK was a Classic Liberal. Biden is a loudmouth pedo Socialist tyrant.

      Listen to the speeches by JFK and by Biden. JFK stood for Freedom and the Constitution.

      Biden is a corrupt pedo THUG who stands for tyranny.

  8. Sweeping indeed ! The Biden Justice Department will keep trying every possible avenue to redefine “dangerous” for the next 2 years of his administration. Thank you Jonathan for an excellent article.

  9. How about mandatory minimums for people that COMMIT A CRIME with a gun? You know, actual criminals and not law abiding citizens. Many years ago the state of MA passed a law mandating a year in jail for a gun crime and NOBODY ever went to jail for this crime. The left only wants to harass citizens that want to legally own a gun.

      1. Member of the FBI that abused the FISA court lied, Are they law-abiding citizens?

        ATS misses the argument by a mile. Does he need to read the decision and check the meaning of words before making things up and losing credibility?

        Let me quote Turley: “the federal bar on gun possession for individuals under a domestic violence ***restraining order*** violates the Second Amendment.”

        Does ATS know the difference between a restraining order and a conviction or even proof of the commission of a crime?

        ATS, take your own advice and read the decision before commenting. Keep a dictionary by your side while doing so for you to distinguish between things that clearly are different.

          1. “Actual domestic abusers”

            How does one generally know that? They are taken to court and convicted. Once CONVICTED, you might say they aren’t law abiding. You like to play around with words, but that is in the hope of tricking someone into believing things that are not true. That is a sure sign you are not credible.

            1. Judges and juries have to presume that, but the average person does not have to presume it, and often the average person doesn’t presume it (e.g., lots of average people presume that Biden and Trump have committed crimes they haven’t been charged with). If you think that the only people who’ve committed domestic abuse are the ones who’ve been convicted of it, then you’re naive.

  10. Having now read the decision, it is interesting to note the court’s reasoning. Far more difficult to condone is the dangerous assertion by the government that it has the power to assert who is “dangerous” and thereby be outside the purview of the 2nd amendment. I can just imagine the present and future administrations running with that kind of power. It would end the 2nd amendment as we know, it if it had been upheld. Even though our second amendment asserts “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” and is therefore quite expansive. It is different in the historical context of British law (upon which it is partially based), As the court asserted in this decision that British Law after the Glorious Revolution gave Englishmen “the right to keep and bear arms as proscribed by law”. Our founders found that law to be limiting, since the were fighting a revolution against a legislative body, Parliament, which, among other things, was tying to remove those rights of being armed.
    Englishmen, as a result, are basically disarmed now as are the citizens of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand because of that limiting sentence in British Law.

    1. No one is taking our guns!

      100+ million gun owners. According to the ATF 700 million guns in circulation.

      I will not comply with registration or voluntarily surrender guns.

      It’s the Socialist utopian dream to confiscate guns. It won’t happen.

  11. I am expecting more denunciations that this ruling will put Americans at risk. If the denouncers want to mitigate risk, I wonder if they would welcome a ruling or a law that says law enforcement can search anyone and anything without a warrant or a reason. I am sure many weapons carried for criminal use would be found and bad guys might reconsider going around armed.

Leave a Reply