Texas judge rules that disarming those under protective orders violates their Second Amendment right

[Aim1]

I believe SCOTUS ruled you can lose your 2nd Amendment rights permanently upon a misdemeanor domestic abuse conviction.



I wonder if that would be overruled by today's courts.




https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/14/texas-judge-domestic-abusers-second-amendment/

 

[Mk-211]

I think I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with Texas on this one.

There's plenty of history out there where everyone has heard of someone that has a PO died by the person they had a PO against.

The talking heads like to point it out all the time. We don't need to give them more to pile on, you can bet they'll be watching this.

 

[jmorris]

There's plenty of history out there where everyone has heard of someone that has a PO died by the person they had a PO against.

The talking heads like to point it out all the time. We don't need to give them more to pile on, you can bet they'll be watching this.

Yeah, I think it’s probably caused by distrust in the people involved with the process. Kind of like the red flag laws. We all might warm up to them if we knew who all were going to impose them, exactly to whom (what’s the threshold for application and can that be changed upon whim) and for how long can you treat someone as they are guilty without them having committed a crime…and if they have committed a crime why don’t you have them locked up, because they are dangerous?

 

[jar]

I think I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with Texas on this one.

There's plenty of history out there where everyone has heard of someone that has a PO died by the person they had a PO against.

The talking heads like to point it out all the time. We don't need to give them more to pile on, you can bet they'll be watching this.

But your example simply supports what the judge found. The evidence shows that the courts did not preemptively deny access to weapons, particularly firearms. His ruling is directly inline with the Thomas ruling.

It will almost certainly have the results you indicate but it is also precisely what the Thomas ruling requires.

 

[DeepSouth]

People that have decided to kill someone will attempt to do so, PO or no PO…. Gun or no gun. For a PO to be effective the accused will have to be under lock and key.

I’m starting to see a future where lawyers on every side the issue will find a ruling somewhere way back that shows the history they want it to show, possible because of so many conflicting cases over the years. But I’m nowhere near a lawyer and could be totally off.

 

[Will Munny]

I think I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with Texas on this one.

There's plenty of history out there where everyone has heard of someone that has a PO died by the person they had a PO against.

The talking heads like to point it out all the time. We don't need to give them more to pile on, you can bet they'll be watching this.

No amount of harm produced by people breaking the law should ever be grounds to infringe upon the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. That is what is called a pretext, and it has Reichstag fire written all over it. If someone harms someone that had a PO against them convict them and put them in front of the squad for all I care, but do not use it as a pretext to infringe upon the rights of other law abiding citizens.

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

Deleted.

 

[dogtown tom]

I think I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with Texas on this one...

It's not a decision by a Texas court, but a federal judge in Texas. State of Texas doesn't have anything to do with this one.