On Thursday a federal appeals court determined that the government is not allowed to block those with domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms. This is the latest move to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority and their attempt to set new standards for reviewing laws relating to gun ownership.
In Texas, the police found both a rifle and a pistol in the home of a camp that had a civil protective order that blocked him from harassing or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. As part of the order, the man was also not allowed to own any firearms. Following a guilty plea, a federal grand jury indicted him. However, he soon challenged the ruling noting that in the United States, it was unconstitutional for him to be kept from owning guns. Initially, a federal appeals court had ruled against the man stating that the immediate safety of someone who was accused of domestic violence, was more important than the right to carry and own firearms.
However, last year the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Brueny, stating when interpreting the Second Amendment it was important to show that the laws in place had fallen in line with the traditions and regulations for firearms.
As a result of this ruling, the appeals court withdrew its original choice and instead ruled on Thursday that it was unconstitutional for someone to be blocked from owning a gun just because of a domestic violence case.
The appeals court withdrew its original decision and on Thursday decided to vacate the man’s conviction and ruled the federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns was unconstitutional.