Restraining Order Ban on Second Amendment, Decision Appealed to Fifth Circuit

Justice Law LegaArguments Concluded in Two FPC and FPF-Supported Second Amendment Casesl Lawsuit Judges Jury Court
Restraining Order Ban on Second Amendment, Decision Appealed to Fifth Circuit

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- On November 15, 2022, the United States Attorney in the Western District of Texas, Ashley C. Hoff, filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States District Court fro the Western District of Texas, Pecos Division in the case of USA v. Perez-Gallan.

Previously, on November 10, 2022, Judge David Counts had issued a Memorandum Opinion dismissing the indictment to Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan as invalid because it was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSR&PA) v. Bruen decision, which restored the Second Amendment as a full-fledged member of the Bill of Rights, not a second class right.

Judge Counts found the part of the controversial  Lautenberg Amendment, passed in 1996, which prohibits a person who is under a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a firearm or ammunition, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), to be unconstitutional.

The wording of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) is this:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-

(8) who is subject to a court order that-

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate; 

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and 

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

Not only did Judge Counts find 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) to be unconstitutional, but he ordered Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan to be released from confinement on November 15, 2022.  To the credit of the United States Attorney, they did not oppose the motion to release Perez-Gallan, because there were no longer any indictments against him.

The United States Attorney then appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. From the Notice of Appeal:

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the United States of America hereby gives notice that it appeals the district court’s November 10, 2022, Order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. No. 55) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted, ASHLEY C. HOFF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Opinion:

The Biden Administration has been put in a bit of a quandary by the Constitution and Judge Counts.

The guidance on how to restore the protections of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written by Judge Clarence Thomas, in the Bruen decision, is clear.

If there is no historical record of widespread and sustained, culturally accepted, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, primarily from the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, and to a lesser extent, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, infringements on the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional.

A ban on the right to possess firearms and ammunition is a direct infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There is no historical record of destroying the exercise of this right because of a mere restraining order, before any conviction.

If the Biden Administration chose not to appeal this decision to the Fifth Circuit, cases such as those of Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan would be seen as losers.

There has been considerable pressure in the dominant leftist media to label the decision to restore fundamental constitutional rights as somehow being anti-woman. The dominant media has framed the narrative as an issue of the safety of domestic abuse victims.  From UPI:

The effort in Texas to expand protections for domestic abuse victims from gun violence has long faced obstacles. A small number of communities in the state have established programs to transfer firearms from people under a protective order to law enforcement, but these resource-intensive programs depend on federal and state laws that ban these individuals from possessing guns.

Note the use of the Orwellian term “gun violence” and the assumption that people under protective orders are domestic abusers. Such restraining orders are routinely abused by divorce lawyers to place pressure on opponents.

The Biden administration is under pressure from the dominant leftist media to “do something” about the decision.

Appealing the decision makes it likely the Fifth Circuit will uphold the decision of the lower court.

Then the Biden Administration would be pressured to appeal it to the Supreme Court, where they would likely lose again.

The Fifth Circuit, in 2020, upheld the § 922(g)(8) prohibition, but only under the now discredited “two-step” process and under discredited “intermediate scrutiny”.

The advantage of the appeal for the Biden Administration is it kicks the can down the road. The Biden administration may well be out of office before this case is decided at the Fifth Circuit, and very likely will be out of office by the time the case goes to the Supreme Court if it does.

This is a very simple case. It is a good test of the will of the Courts to restore Second Amendment rights under the Bruen decision.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TexDad

This and 922n always flew in the face of presumed innocence. It’s not acceptable to punish someone for being accused.

musicman44mag

Your response to this is the reason I am so against red flag laws.

Green Mtn. Boy

Memo to the braindead Left,any and all gun control laws are un Constitutional.

swmft

he knew they would have to be cleaned before they would work

Coelacanth

“Shall not be infringed”.

Tionico

Many divorce lawyers, as they manufacture the monstrous pile of documents (more pay for more paper) automatifaly include a restraining order. which the moving party simply signs without even reading, thinking the attorney is just “doing what os necessary”. Oftenm since the respondent has moved to another state, not only is there no threat from that party, that party often nevr gets served with the restraining order. Thus it cannot be cntested within the short statutory time, and thus binds without the targt of the order even being aware it exists. This is in ni wise “due process of law”… Read more »

Xaun Loc

No surprise here. (Yawn, hardly even worth calling “news” — remember the adage: Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is news.) Nearly every 2A decision from any District Court judge is going to be appealed to the respective circuit court. Then it will be heard by a panel that will make a decision — and that decision will be appealed, requesting an en banc ruling form the full Circuit Court. Then that decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 2A cases only end when the losing party runs out of money (of course the govt never… Read more »

ashort

all I can say is I stand with the Second Amendment…