Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law
But last year, the United States Supreme Court released a new decision in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Brun. This case set new standards for the interpretation of the Second Amendment by saying that the government must justify gun control laws by showing that they are “consistent with the nation’s historic tradition of regulating fire arms.
The appeals court reversed its original decision and decided on Thursday to overturn the man’s conviction and ruled that the federal law prohibiting those subjected to domestic violence from prohibiting possession of weapons was unconstitutional.
Specifically, the court ruled that the federal law was an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted” – borrowing a quote from the Bruen decision.
The decision came from a three-judge panel consisting of Justices Cory Wilson, James Ho and Edith Jones. Wilson and Ho were nominated by former Republican President Donald Trump, while Jones was nominated by former Republican President Ronald Reagan.
The US Department of Justice released the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on Thursday evening following the ruling: The child cannot legally own a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent or the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment, this law is constitutional. Accordingly, Commerce will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary determination. »
Thursday’s ruling overturned the federal law and likely won’t impact similar state laws, including one in California. Still, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called the judges who handed down the ruling “bigots” who are “committed to a deranged view of guns for all, leaving the government powerless to protect its people.”
“This is what the ultra-conservative majority of the Supreme Court of the United States wants. It’s happening, and it’s happening right now,” Newsom said. “Wake up America – this assault on our security will only accelerate.”
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the problem with laws like the one the federal appeals court struck down is that they’re too broad and don’t take into account the specifics of each case.
He gave as an example one of his clients whose neighbor filed a restraining order against them because they pointed a security camera at their property.
“They lost their gun rights,” he said. “When they make a blanket ban regardless of individual circumstances, they shoot the dogs with the wolves.”
Thursday’s ruling demonstrates the far-reaching implications of the Bruen decision. In California, the decision prompted lawmakers to revise their law regarding concealed-carry permits.
On Wednesday, Newsom approved a bill in the state Legislature that would ban people from carrying concealed weapons in nearly all public places, except churches and businesses that have put up a sign saying that firearms are acceptable.