« Further thoughts on Rahimi | Main | Wondering about the impact of this on 18 USC §922(o) »
Ruling on restraining order
At the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Volokh discusses a recent Ohio ruling. The plaintiff is the county coroner, the defendant someone who wanted some records, and got quite obsessive and obnoxious about it. The trial court issued a protective order forbidding the defendant to mention the coroner's name online, and forbidding him to possess firearms. The Court of Appeals held that the first restriction violated freedom of speech, and the second violated the right to arms.
The Supreme Court recently upheld 18 USC §922(g)(1), which forbids firearms possession by those subject to a restraining order issued after a finding that the person posed a "credible threat" to a family member. The Ohio decision suggests there may be a valid challenge to §922(g)(2), which forbids firearms possession by a person who is restrained from "harassing, stalking, or threatening" a family member, and where the restraining order "explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury." The (g)(2) order requires no finding of a credible threat.
Of course this decision went this way because the courts screwed up and allowed Congress to exercise police powers that were never delegated. We were warned that including the BoR would make people THINK that Congress had powers that the BoR excluded when in fact Congress has no powers that are not delegated in writing in the Constitution. All penumbras, emanations and implications of powers are lies made up by the government. These statutes usurp police powers that were retained by the states. See Story (1833) concerning police powers not being delegated. Read the Constitution and actually look for points where the Constitution provides even the slightest authority over individuals at all and then wrt to health and safety. Add this to another of the incorrect decisions the SC has made. See Tucker (1899) and others concerning the lack of power over things even things wrt to the CC.