Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

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

Featured Replies

It’s the first step to removing all gun control. The founders believed in zero restrictions so all gun laws are invalid.

Well this will be good for the stock prices of gun manufacturers, no?  
 

I’d make a special DV45 limited edition.  

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Wrong thread and forum 

Yeah the Trumptard circle jerk here is going to be upset 

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yeah the Trumptard circle jerk here is going to be upset 

Or there is already a thread for Supreme Court decisions in the CR, and the information was already posted and was being discussed. 

Or there is already a thread for Supreme Court decisions in the CR, and the information was already posted and was being discussed. 

Why would this be in a thread about SCOTUS decisions, since this is not one?

The 2a clearly recognizes the authority of a well regulated militia to shoot to kill or something. 

Gil Bang has done run amok.

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Furthermore,  the founding fathers didn't even know Rahimi's wife, so how can it be established that killing her is something that our ancestors would disapprove of??

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

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.

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.

Any other court and I'd suspect this is their effort to show just how stupid the Bruen decision was.  But it's the 5th, so they actually believe it. 

22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Heh.  Edith Jones.  To date, the only judge I have made audibly sigh in exasperation while I was arguing a case

I find this kinda hard to believe.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.