In a ruling handed down on the last day of 2024, a federal appeals court ruled that the statute banning gun ownership by accused domestic abusers is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and can be enforced.
The decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans was a reversal of its earlier decision, and judges took into account the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Rahimi in reaching their latest conclusion.
The case, U.S. v. Perez-Gallan, revolves around the June 2022 arrest of Litsson Perez-Gallan, who was driving his 18-wheeler at the Mexico-United States border in Presidio, Texas. Asked if he was armed, Perez-Gallan said yes and consented to a search, which resulted in agents finding a pistol in his backpack.
The gun had been reported stolen, which Perez-Gallan explained away by saying it had been given to him by a friend. However, further investigation revealed that he was under a restraining order from the state of Kentucky for an incident the month before when he was arrested and charged with assault. In that incident, his partner stated that Perez-Gallan had struck her in the face while she was holding their baby, and after she put the baby down, he dragged her to the bathroom, struck her in the face again, and began hitting her in the ribs.
Perez-Gallan was subsequently charged with assault in the fourth degree. The Kentucky state district court released him on bond but issued an order imposing conditions of release, including forbidding him from owning a gun.
Earlier, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the federal law barring alleged domestic abusers from having a gun violated the Second Amendment. When the appeal hit the U.S. Supreme Court, which occurred after the Rahimi ruling, the high court remanded the case back to the Circuit Court with the instructions to consider the Rahim decision when reconsidering the case.
In the December 31 ruling, Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote that because alleged domestic abusers pose a clear threat of violence, the statute is constitutional under SCOTUS Rahimi ruling.
In the ruling, Judge Smith wrote that the intervening Supreme Court decision was sufficient reason for the 5th Circuit to change its precedent.
“In short, if we cannot adhere to our former precedent without disregarding intervening Supreme Court precedent, our circuit’s precedent has been implicitly overruled,” he wrote.
Ultimately, the judgment reversed an earlier district court’s finding that the law was unconstitutional and sent the case back to that court for further consideration. The circuit court did, however, note that there are likely times when the statute is “problematic” and could be considered a constitutional infringement.
“Finally, we acknowledge that some potential applications of § 922(g)- (8)(C)(ii) appear problematic, and we do not hold that the statute is (or even likely to be) constitutional in all its applications,” the ruling stated. ‘As one judge noted in Rahimi 2023, so-called ‘mutual’ protective orders pose a real concern. Because in ‘any domestic violence dispute, a judge may see no downside in forbidding both parties from harming one another,’ domestic-violence proceedings ‘have often led to the issuance of unmerited mutual restraining orders, namely in situations where one party is the abuser and the other party is a victim.’
“If these court orders also meet the terms of §§ 922(g)(8)(A) and (B), an abused woman could lose her right to possess a gun just because her violent domestic partner is awarded a mutual protective order against her, even if there are no indications that the woman herself is dangerous.”
Because the 2A is an individual right it should be case by case. To broad brush everyone sounds kkk-nazi like they’re all Black or they’re all Jews.
johnson reelected to house speaker.
“johnson reelected to house speaker.”
The alternative was utter chaos: no certification of the Electoral College vote; no inauguration; no business conducted while the battle raged; funding the govt dumped into the first year of the new administration (for starters).
Yeah, the democrats were a little upset.
U.S. Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D) lost her mind on the House Floor after she and other non-voting delegates are not allowed to vote for House Speaker because they represent territories, not states.
Plaskett Melts Down Over Speaker Vote.
h ttps://pjmedia.com/lincolnbrown/2025/01/03/plaskett-melts-down-over-speaker-vote-n4935648
h ttps://x.com/RealSaavedra/status/1875251706344436000?mx=2
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/house-has-secret-weapon-to-insure-electoral-college-vote-count-comes-monday-analyst-5785725?ea_src=frontpage&ea_cnt=a&ea_med=us-politics-left-5
“The lower chamber in the 119th Congress can function without a speaker and has done so as recently as October 2023, when former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was removed by conservative rebels led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) presided over the House as acting speaker while the House Republican Conference struggled before finally settling on Johnson to replace McCarthy.”
Accused isn’t the same as convicted. No one should be punished for a crime prior to being convicted of the crime they are being accused of. Stripping someone of a civil right is a punishment.
Because women never lie to gain advantage/get their way. All are Saints.
#believeallwomen
Oops. Bill Clinton and Puppet Joe rape accusers actually have credible evidence and dates of when it happened unlike Trump and Kavanaugh accusers who happen to have political motivations. Never mind. #believealldemocrats Oh wait, those women Bill and Joe raped were Democrat supporters too. Uhh… Orange Man Bad! Look over there!
Agreed.
If somebody is dangerous, and is known to be so, then they should be in custody. Last I checked, you can’t have weapons when you’re in jail.
If they are not known to be dangerous, then they should not be forced to give up their means of self-defense.
If the person requesting the RO is worried that the “restrainee” will perpetrate grave injury or death upon the “restrainor”, then they should be allowed to get their own weapons. Expedited, even!
Carole Brown had an RO out on her violent ex, and she knew his tendencies, so she HAD purchased a firearm. But she was prevented from getting a carry permit by the fat, lazy, and incompetent governor of her state. Chris Christie’s government, by state law, was supposed to approve CC permits within 30 days. More than 60 days had passed with Carole Browne’s request growing moldy and spider-webby, languishing on some incompetent (or anti-2A) administrator’s desk; ignored while her violent ex made his plans.
Carole Browne was murdered in her driveway, stabbed to death and left to bleed out. Oh, we can be self-congratulatory on our concern for safety, because her self-defense firearm remained safely stored inside her house, while she died at the hands of her murderer, with help from the lazy governor of her state.
Because she was observing New Jersey law. But criminals don’t observe law. Her murderer didn’t even need a gun, and we know that most will find a way to murder even if they can’t find a way to get a gun in the moment.
I did not know Carole Brown, nor did I know her family, or even if she had one. But certainly SOMEBODY loved her. SOMEBODY misses her, even now, years after her suffering death.
This is Chris Christie’s fault. When he was Governor of New Jersey, he lived a privileged life. Taking his family to the beach…that was closed to the rest of the public. I don’t remember why the beach was closed (it was before Covid), but I still remember having to look at the photos of his fat legs while he reclined on a beach chair, on an empty beach, smug in his elite position in society.
He should never work in government again. Never, ever, not ever. Make it “forever+1 day”, and it’s STILL not long enough.
Carole Brown should have had the opportunity to defend herself from her attacker; right there in her driveway if need be, or wherever her ex had decided to bring his evil to her.
There’s a rumor that Chris Christie is the one that recommended Christopher Wray for the position of FBI director.
FOX News Headline today “Gutsy woman, 71, fends off violent attack by 4 teen girls on blue city subway.” This woman also denied her right to self defense.
This guy was free on bond. No firearms was a condition to which he agreed. Case closed.
Immediately after the Rahimi case was issued by the the SC, I wrote that Rahimi was the vehicle by which the SC overrode it’s own Bruen decision.
And here it is. Being accused is sufficient to allow govt to violate your natural, civil, and human rights.
The Kentucky state district court released him on bond but issued an order imposing conditions of release, including forbidding him from owning a gun.
I don’t really see this as a 2A case, but more of a due process case, making it a 14A issue.
Then again, they’ll probably get away with it because it’s a “conditional release” thing where the person being released “agreed” to a set of stipulations as part of being released instead of held in custody.
That’s how they tend to nail people for gun violations when drug charges are involved.
Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote that because alleged domestic abusers pose a clear threat of violence, the statute is constitutional under SCOTUS Rahimi ruling.
Ah, yes… those magical instances where accusations do the jury’s work. Convenient, that.
“It seems to me that suspicion alone is not enough to speak. Once spoken out, the suspicion of such depravity is real enough to do the work of truth.” comes to mind.
“I don’t really see this as a 2A case, but more of a due process case, making it a 14A issue.”
Looks more like a violation of the 14th as a means to launch a stealth attack on 2A. Where does the US legislature, or state law, find authority to make mere legislative restrictions on the Constitution, rather than either direct authority, or indirect authority, derived from an amendment to the Constitution? If some how “special” considerations can be ruled constitutional, what cannot? Puts any provisioin of the Constitution subject to the winds of politics.
Looks more like a violation of the 14th as a means to launch a stealth attack on 2A.
Yes, but when the enemy chooses the battlefield you have two basic choices. Meet them or go somewhere else. If they choose 14A territory, then there we shall fight because otherwise we’re letting them dictate terms and there’s a word for that, assuming you see the ploy, and that word is “cowardice”. The alternative is that they’ve outsmarted you.
This is why Cons positions on other topics annoy me. They undermine the BoR and make it an a la carte menu. Now you’re fighting over choices instead of simply saying “No, these things are not up for debate”.
Sun Tzu would take two views on that, depending on which side he took. From the authoritarian point of view, it’s Ground of Intersecting Highways. For us, it’s either Difficult Ground or Hemmed-In Ground depending on your approach to the topic.
If some how “special” considerations can be ruled constitutional, what cannot?
Not to be cute; Ones that are not “special”, obviously.
The trick is that they’ve already gotten you to agree that such circumstances exist and therefore they merely need to declare that whatever they’d like to alter is “special”. Hence the concerns over emergency powers and the statement that if you allow abuses under an emergency then you will find the government always finds an emergency.
Now, you might argue that you didn’t agree to the existence of these special circumstances. Fair but irrelevant once they point out that this opinion is essentially the same as that of Kaczynski, a poor analogy but one which most people will buy because they’re not informed enough to debate the point and they don’t want to be added to the list of Kaczynski-esque figures.
As Breitbart himself pointed out:Politics is downstream from culture. That’s a fact. Unfortunately, the Left controls the culture in most sectors. This is also a fact. The question is how you operate in reality given this uncomfortable set of fact.
I should have clarified: “If some how “special” considerations can be ruled constitutional, what cannot be declared ‘special’ ?”
All of them can be declared “special” given the right circumstances.
That’s why letting the argument get to that point is a fool’s errand.
It’s both.
True. It’s a motte and bailey legal argument.
The reason I suggest treating it as a 14A case is because when facing such an argument you might as well attack the motte first and use your counters to the bailey as a buttressing argument.
1. Don’t slap/beat your partner. (FindLaw Footnote 3 / Pled guilty / lesser charge / Jefferson County, Ky.)
2. Don’t possess stolen firearms.
3. Dump friend(s) that sell you stolen firearms.
Cybertruck Bomber Matt Livelsberger’s Email Reveals NEW Evidence.
“Sam Shoemate is an intelligence officer and Chief Warrant Officer 2 (US Army, Retired). On December 31st, Sam received an email allegedly from Matthew Livelsberger – who would be named as the perpetrator in the detonation of a Tesla Cybertruck at Trump Tower the following day. In this episode of the Shawn Ryan Show, Shoemate brings forward critical information and allegations that cast doubt on the “mainstream” narratives surrounding this event – and many others – if true.
…
05:26 The Shocking Email
09:49 The Manifesto
15:10 Unveiling the Gravitic Propulsion System
20:17 Connecting the Dots
28:25 FBI and CID Involvement
35:28 Tesla Incident Theory
40:18 Drone and UAP Concerns
52:32 Iranian Missiles and Border Security
58:43 Call to Action for Community Safety”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xglaXVtQcis
(YouTube might take this down – these are alleged to be emails from the cybertruck guy)
***************
Matthew Livelsberger claimed Cybertruck bombing was to ‘cleanse his mind’ of brothers he lost — and trashed ‘feckless leadership’ of a USA ‘near collapse’.
“Las Vegas Cybertruck bomber Matthew Livelsberger claimed his shocking suicide wasn’t a terror attack but a way for the US solider to ‘cleanse’ his mind — while blasting the ‘feckless leadership’ of a United States ‘near collapse,’ authorities revealed Friday.
…”
h ttps://nypost.com/2025/01/03/us-news/matthew-livelsberger-claimed-las-vegas-cybertruck-bombing-wasnt-a-terror-attack-in-note/
The Latest Development on the Tesla Cybertruck Bomber Just Took an Unusual Turn.
h ttps://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/01/03/latest-on-tesla-cybertruck-bomber-n2649967
After This Development on the Tesla Cybertruck Bomber, Watch the Media Be All Over This Story.
“BREAKING: Las Vegas Metro police release more letters from bomber Matthew Livelsberger where he tells Americans to “rally around” Donald Trump, Elon Musk and RFK Jr.
…
So, there’s the hook for the media to cast Trump supporters, especially those in uniform, as loose cannons. Be prepared for the media to latch onto this story like a barnacle and denigrate our service members for being the fifth column as they cope with their 2024 election loss. It’s already begun if you watch MSNBC.”
h ttps://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/01/04/after-this-update-on-the-tesla-cybertruck-bomber-watch-the-media-latch-onto-this-story-n2649978
Accused or charged?
Rahimi was the signal to lower courts that Bruen can be rolled back.
RIP Bruen.
Rahimi has left a big pile of quick sand in its wake.
They are right. It is not illegal under the 2nd amendment. It’s illegal do deny somebody their 2nd amendment rights without due process under the 5th and 14th amendment.
Its unconstitutional.
Yo J, your friends here have been wondering about you. Pls call or text them if you have their numbers.
😉
thanx
Guardian Angels Patrol NYC Subway.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgJG1UMrsIE