Jump to content

Thoughts on the recent ruling in the opinion issued by Federal District Judge David Counts in the Western District of Texas in United States of America v. Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan


Recommended Posts

From the opinion:

 

“Before Bruen, the Second Amendment looked like an abandoned cabin in the woods. A knot of vines, weeds, and roots, left unkempt for decades, crawling up the cabin’s sides as if pulling it under the earth. Firearm regulations are that overgrowth. Starting with the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, laws were passed with little—if any—consideration given to their constitutionality. That is, until the Supreme Court intervened in Bruen.”

“The State has not shown any historical precedent for removing the right to keep and bear arms because of a restraining order for domestic violence.”

“That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds that the Government did not prove that §922(g)(8) aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.”

I have said for decades that the General Assembly of Tennessee has violated its own sacred oath, more especially since 2010 when the SCOTUS incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, making it plain that the 2nd is a civil Right, not to be broken in upon by legislation that is unconstitutional.

Every tax-payer paid employee who knowingly violates this right is guilty of Official Oppression under TCA3 39-16-403.

Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution requires that the legislature prove that any law passed that denies that right “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution…” (Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871))  I have to date seen not one scintilla of empirical data presented by the Department of Safety, TBI, Sheriff’s Association, Chiefs of Police etc. lobbyist or Department spokespersons (all tax payer paid employees by the way, all of them) to say allowing a non-criminal citizen to keep and bear arms increased crime.  Sans that required ingredient, the actions of the TN General Assembly from 1801 to present day are clearly unconstitutional when their acts make enjoying a right guaranteed by our Constitutions, both State and Union, a crime.

From
Andrews: "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution."

Edited by Worriedman
Link to comment

I read up on that yesterday, there are two cases in two different states with this. Going to be interesting to see how the.gov responds. I know it’s just about shipping but it is a back door to gun control.

Link to comment

I have not read the full opinion, just the summary kindly provided by Mr. Harris and TFA.  I believe the case is not about shipping but rather the federal statute making it unlawful to possess a firearm if a person is the subject of a restraining order, charged with domestic assault, etc.

If memory serves, back during the flurry of federal litigation re: the Affordable Care Act, one U.S. district court judge in Texas (maybe J. Reed?) entered an injunction that purported to be nationwide.  

In regard to the decision of a few days ago, it will be interesting to see whether federal district court judges enter similar "nationwide" injunctions prohibiting the enforcement of federal firearms laws they find unconstitutional.

Link to comment
On 12/2/2022 at 10:43 AM, RED333 said:

I read up on that yesterday, there are two cases in two different states with this. Going to be interesting to see how the.gov responds. I know it’s just about shipping but it is a back door to gun control.

Actually has nothing to do with shipping. the gist of the case is that there was no historical case law regarding restraining orders, and all the "domestic" regulations were nonexistent at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is the takeaway from the case, a lower court has said that Bruen demands only historical review of laws un place a that time matter in deciding these cases.  the same judge asks whether the Judiciary takes a scalpel or a chainsaw to excise the unconstitutional filth that has grown up around the 2nd. 

Moreover, the result of the ruling is that Federal Judge declaring U.S. code 922 (g) (8) unconstitutional.  Under Bruen no higher Court will be able to set that aside, without making law.

Edited by Worriedman
  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.