Another Bruen Win

We’ve been covering how some judges are adhering to the Bruen decision and others are not.  The ones that are not are distinct in that they all seem to be stretching to find something that isn’t there or to find a way to invert the rules.

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.

What a wonderful turn of phrase.

He is right. For the longest time the second was treated as the red haired stepchild. There is no other right that has had so many restrictions put on it. There is no other right which has been so “balanced” by government wants. The second was treated as a might have run.

As people that are not involved in the criminal court system we look to avoid being embroiled in the law. I.e. we want to be law abiding people. We also want to be able to defend ourselves and our family. That means we want laws that allow us to keep and bear arms freely.

Laws that create a legal minefield of where we can carry and where we can not are designed to make it so hard to carry legally that we just don’t. You are going to stop at the Post Office after work? Is it worth it to carry today then?

I’ve had a courthouse guard hassle me because I had a holster on my hip. No gun. Just the holster.

I want this to stop. I think that you want it to stop as well.

But the Bruen opinion bites much deeper than “just leave us alone.” It is going to roll back many of the gun control laws.

In United States of America v. Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan another part of the Gun control laws took a hit. And this one will start the fall of red flag laws. U.S. District Judge David Counts ordered that Perez-Gallan’s petition to dismiss be granted.

Perez-Gallan was being charged with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. He was called “prohibited” because there was a restraining order against him.

That’s it. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) it is a crime to possess a firearm while subject to a court order.

The gist of Judge Count’s order is that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional.

This would mean that all Red Flag laws are also unconstitutional.

As the judge stated, until 1994 there was no law prohibiting a person under court order from possessing a firearm. This is not within the history or tradition of the second amendment in 1791.

All cases attacking 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) have been denied because of standing. They happened prior to the Heller opinion in 2008. Thus the courts ruled that the “right to bear arms” was a collective right.

It is likely that over the next dozen years or so we are going to see the gutting of the GCA and the NFA. Regardless of the games that the gun rights infringers continue to play.
United State of America v. Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan – Memorandum Opinion