Unconstitutional Firearm Ownership Restrictions Fall
Two bans on firearms ownership were ruled unconstitutional by two separate federal courts on the same day last week.
The first ruling came from a federal district court in Oklahoma regarding a law that prevents Marijuana users from owning firearms.
Quote:
Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm."
He said using marijuana was "not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act," and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.
"The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation supports," Wyrick wrote.
SOURCE
In the second case, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law which prohibits persons who are under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms is unconstitutional.
Quote:
Feb 2 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime for people under domestic violence restraining orders to own firearms.
The decision by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest victory for gun rights advocates since a Supreme Court ruling last June granting a broad right for people to carry firearms outside the home.
That ruling, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, announced a new test for assessing firearms laws, saying restrictions must be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," and not simply advance an important government interest.
In Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Cory Wilson said banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms "embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society."
But the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, said the Bruen ruling made such a consideration irrelevant, and that from a historical perspective the ban was "an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."
SOURCE
Note that neither law required an arrest or conviction prior to the ban, just the mere use of Marijuana, or the mere allegation of domestic violence triggered the ban. I am against that in both cases. I believe a final conviction must be made before stripping a person of their rights.
I'm sure the government will appeal both rulings, and in light of Bruen, I believe the SCOTUS will leave the rulings intact.
On another note, I have noticed a trend by the news media to characterize court cases such as these as "expanding gun rights" which is a blatantly wrong characterization. The rights are being restored, not expanded.
