« Further thoughts on Rahimi | Main
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.
Leave a comment