Jump to content

5th Circuit: Beat up your wife? She has a restraining order? No problem; go ahead and keep your guns


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, South Austin said:

The Fifth Circuit has become a collection of mostly awful human beings.

True, but the scotus decision in Breuen (sp?) makes these types of cases easier and may even require the result. Some district judges and circuits are going to struggle harder to avoid these results than others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but the scotus decision in Breuen (sp?) makes these types of cases easier and may even require the result. Some district judges and circuits are going to struggle harder to avoid these results than others. 

Correct.

I would also point out that the Texas state statutes relevant to this issue MAY not be affected for several reasons.

The UCW statute is most analogous, EXCEPT the underlying PO in Texas requires a finding that family violence has actually occurred (FV includes threats of violence). That requirement is not in the federal statute. This distinction might make a difference since a lot of this opinion focuses on “law abiding citizen”, which a person subject to a Texas PO is arguably not.

Also, there is a Texas criminal law for “violation of a protective order”. Since virtually all Texas protective orders include a prohibition against firearm possession, someone could be prosecuted under that statute.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasoning here on this issue is VERY akin to the reasoning the 5th Circuit uses to perpetually uphold and enforce qualified immunity.

"Yes, there is clearly established law that a cop walking up to a person, saying 'die, scum,' and shooting him in the face, is a violation of constitutional rights.  Well, sort of.   See, that case was about a shooting that happened on a weekday.  And the present case before us happened on a Saturday.  Thus, it was not CLEARLY established that it's a constitutional violation to shoot a dude in the face for no reason on a WEEKEND.  So, the officer retains his qualified immunity."

The nitpickery employed simply to reach their desired outcome is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.  But then, intellectual dishonesty is the name of the game these days for GQP-dominated courts.  The "judicial activism" they used to rail about is now their bread-and-butter: pick the outcome you want, then torture the reasoning to get there.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, scottsins said:


Correct.

I would also point out that the Texas state statutes relevant to this issue MAY not be affected for several reasons.

The UCW statute is most analogous, EXCEPT the underlying PO in Texas requires a finding that family violence has actually occurred (FV includes threats of violence). That requirement is not in the federal statute. This distinction might make a difference since a lot of this opinion focuses on “law abiding citizen”, which a person subject to a Texas PO is arguably not.

Also, there is a Texas criminal law for “violation of a protective order”. Since virtually all Texas protective orders include a prohibition against firearm possession, someone could be prosecuted under that statute.

Using whether a gun law affects "law abiding citizens" is going to get very circular, very quickly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The reasoning here on this issue is VERY akin to the reasoning the 5th Circuit uses to perpetually uphold and enforce qualified immunity.

"Yes, there is clearly established law that a cop walking up to a person, saying 'die, scum,' and shooting him in the face, is a violation of constitutional rights.  Well, sort of.   See, that case was about a shooting that happened on a weekday.  And the present case before us happened on a Saturday.  Thus, it was not CLEARLY established that it's a constitutional violation to shoot a dude in the face for no reason on a WEEKEND.  So, the officer retains his qualified immunity."

The nitpickery employed simply to reach their desired outcome is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.  But then, intellectual dishonesty is the name of the game these days for GQP-dominated courts.  The "judicial activism" they used to rail about is now their bread-and-butter: pick the outcome you want, then torture the reasoning to get there.

what is going to happen with QI in the fifth circuit

 

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/06/a-couple-of-fifth-circuit-appeals-court-judges-look-like-they-believe-performing-journalism-is-a-criminal-act/

Edited by chainsaw
link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Heh.  Edith Jones.  To date, the only judge I have made audibly sigh in exasperation while I was arguing a case ( @Ghost of LL couldn't contain his amusement when it happened).  I didn't care -- she was going to do what she was going to do, and I refused to buy into it on the record.

We've got some real issues in the 5th Circuit.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Heh.  Edith Jones.  To date, the only judge I have made audibly sigh in exasperation while I was arguing a case ( @Ghost of LL couldn't contain his amusement when it happened).  I didn't care -- she was going to do what she was going to do, and I refused to buy into it on the record.

We've got some real issues in the 5th Circuit.

Obama should have packed it or abolished it or something.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...