Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Another win (at TRO stage) in New Jersey | Main | Thought for the day »

5th Circuit overturns federal ban on possession by those subject to a DV restraining order

Posted by David Hardy · 2 February 2023 07:09 PM

Opinion here. Now, the defendant was someone who ought to be behind bars, for a long time, and fn. 4 suggests that he will be behind bars for a time on state charges. Given that, I wonder why the federales brought charges, over what was the least of his offenses. Maybe looking for publicity?

The Fifth Circuit notes that, under Bruen, the test is text, history, and tradition, and the analogs the government advanced were either inappropriate (the Militia Act of 1662, which was part of the basis of the 1688 Declaration of Rights) or simply stretching things too far.

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | February 3, 2023 10:21 AM | Reply

That was a good read....and my take is that they REALLY...didn't like the fact that they don't get to put their thumb on the scale anymore (determining what level scrutiny they will let you have on your right). The concurrence gets it. Based on this opinion, if upheld En banc...then I see them striking down most of the NFA...perhaps they let 922(o) stand...but the rest of it, I just don't see it. Let's see what Texas does in Paxton v. Richardson (4:22-cv-00143).

Marcus Poulin | February 3, 2023 11:23 AM | Reply

Yes Hoping for This Too Anonymous. Why would 922(o) EVER Stand in this Context???!

Carl from Chicago | February 3, 2023 12:14 PM | Reply

Am I correct in my understanding of the progressive nature by which prohibited persons have been iteratively created under federal law?

At first people could be prohibited from keeping arm if they were convicted of a violent felony. Then they made it to include conviction of any felony. Then they made it to include conviction of a misdemeanor crime domestic violence. Then they made it to include being subject to a civil restraining order for domestic violence. Am I correct? If so, that’s quite a pattern. Is there any logical stopping point to such a pattern?

JDL | February 3, 2023 11:16 PM | Reply

Carl from Chicago, you left out the classification of any misdemeanor punishable by greater than two years as a felony for the purposes of 922(g) (1) (defined at 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)).

Leave a comment