US 2nd Amendment Under Assault, Freedom Firearms Guns Defense

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Sun Mar 19 21:57:14 PDT 2023


> Biden Unlawful... Repeatedly Rapes the US Constitution...

Biden tries render everyone defenseless against tyrants...
Even convicted felons have a god given human right to
defend themselves...


Biden DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Fast-Track Case That Could Reinstate
Federal Gun Ban

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-doj-asks-supreme-court-to-fast-track-case-that-could-reinstate-federal-gun-ban_5133477.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/appeals-court-finds-federal-gun-ban-on-domestic-violence-offenders-unconstitutional_5030461.html

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is asking the Supreme Court to
overturn an appeals court ruling that struck down a federal law
preventing people under domestic violence-related restraining orders
from having guns.

The Biden administration asked in its new petition (pdf) for the high
court to hear the case on a “highly expedited schedule” because of the
“significant disruptive consequences” of the lower court’s ruling. The
petition was reportedly filed with the court on March 17 but had not
been docketed as of press time.

The case comes as courts nationwide are playing catchup regarding the
Supreme Court’s landmark June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and
Pistol Association v. Bruen that held firearms restrictions must be
deeply rooted in American history if they are to survive
constitutional scrutiny.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on March
15 that the Bruen ruling offers little guidance to lower courts on
interpreting the decision, as Courthouse News Service reported.

“The gun lobby saw Bruen as a landmark win, but it is a significant
challenge for police, law enforcement, and the population of America
when it comes to public safety,” Durbin said.

The case involves Zackey Rahimi of Texas, who pled guilty to violating
a 1994 federal law –Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code—
that prohibits a person who is subject to a domestic-violence
restraining order from possessing a firearm. Rahimi was involved in
five shooting incidents after the restraining order was entered
against him in February 2020.

But when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit took up
Rahimi’s case earlier this year, it overturned the law, finding it was
no longer constitutional according to the principles laid down in
Bruen.

The government failed “to demonstrate that § 922(g)(8)’s restriction
of the Second Amendment right fits within our Nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulation,” the panel stated. The ban on the
possession of firearms by someone under a domestic violence-related
restraining order “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have
accepted.”

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said last month the DOJ would
appeal the ruling but did not provide a timeline for doing so.

“Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject
to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an
intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm,” Garland
said in a Feb. 2 statement.

“Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of
the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute
is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further
review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”

In the new petition, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argues
that the appeals court erred.

“In concluding that Section 922(g)(8) lacks adequate historical
support, the Fifth Circuit missed the forest for the trees. The court
overlooked the strong historical evidence supporting the general
principle that the government may disarm dangerous individuals,” the
document states.

The court also “analyzed each historical statute in isolation and
dismissed each one on the ground that it differed from Section
922(g)(8) in some way.”

The 5th Circuit’s “mode of analysis was flawed.” Courts interpreting
the Second Amendment have to “consider text, history, and tradition,
[but] they should not focus on whether the law at issue has ‘a
historical twin,’” the petition states, quoting from the Bruen
decision.

“This Court’s review is warranted because the Fifth Circuit held an
important federal statute unconstitutional on its face,” the petition
states.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the DOJ for comment on its new petition.

The Epoch Times has also reached out to Rahimi’s attorneys at the
Federal Public Defender’s offices in Fort Worth and Lubbock, Texas,
for comment.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list