Consider, for example, a study that found that IPV victims who sought a protective order were far more likely to report an abuser threatening to shoot them, children, family/friends and strangers. #domesticviolence #gunviolence #Bruen

People subject to #domesticviolence protective orders are clearly dangerous to their intimate partners, families, friends, first responders and the broader public. #gunviolence #Bruen

We argue that the United States has a robust history of regulating firearm access by people perceived to be dangerous. #gunviolence #domesticviolence #Bruen

A little late, but several of my colleagues at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions and preeminent #domesticviolence and #firearms researchers from across the country filed a brief urging #SCOTUS to take up United States of Rahimi and uphold the federal law prohibiting persons subject to DV protective orders from possessing firearms. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-915/264023/20230420121311462_22-915%20US%20v.%20Rahimi%20-%20Horwitz%20et%20al.%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

The court concludes that ERPOs satisfy due process. #ERPO #gunviolence

A determination that can only be made by a qualified medical professional. In contrast, ERPO does not require a finding of mental illness or that the likelihood of serious harm result from mental illness.

ERPOs involve fact-based conduct "that may be directly considered by the court without the need for expert opinion testimony."

The court here found the comparison inappropriate because Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 requires finding that a person has a mental illness for which in-patient treatment is appropriate, & that the mental illness is is likely to result in serious harm.

New case re #ERPO from New York disagreeing with G.W. v. C.N. which found #ERPO unconstitutionally deprived due process because unlike the Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 #ERPO does not require a determination by a doctor. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2023/2023-ny-slip-op-23099.html

I believe that the safety of individuals from their intimate partners is a matter of "public safety." But also domestic abusers endanger general public. Eg,
@lisabgeller
's study showed that > 2/3 of mass shootings are DV incidents or are perpetrated by shooters w/ a history of DV (6/X) #domesticviolence #gunviolence

E.D. California also rejects the fine distinction identified in Perez-Gallan and Rahimi between the "private" safety of an intimate partner protected by an order and the public safety historical laws were meant to protect. (4/X) #gunviolence #domesticviolence

It noted that if we accept that the 2A reference to "arms" encompasses historical and modern arms, we must also accept modern conceptions of the danger posed by those arms. (5/X)

922(g)(8)'s prohibition is temporary - lasting only as long as the underlying order is in effect. (3/X) #gunviolence #domesticviolence #Bruen

E.D. California directly disagrees with Rahimi's characterization of one of the key metrics of analogy: "how" historical surety laws and 922(g)(8) burden the right, stating that 922(g)(8) is not an "absolute deprivation." (2/X) #gunviolence #domesticviolence

United States v. Guthrey, upholding fed law prohibiting possession of firearms by persons subject to #domesticviolence protective orders, is the latest example of courts applying #Bruen to evaluate the same law and the same history and coming to a different conclusion (1/X)

In the substitute, the court speculates without evidence that the historical laws may have been enacted because these individuals were not part of the political community - not part of "the people" to whom the Second Amendment applies. #BruenAbsurdity #domesticviolence #gunviolence #lawfedi (3/X)

In it's prior opinion, the court argued that there were "material differences" between the way the federal prohibition and these historical laws disarmed individuals. It wrote that historical laws disarmed people by broad category rather than an individualized assessment of dangerousness and did so for the preservation of public order rather than for the safety of an identified individual. #BruenAbsurdity #domesticviolence #gunviolence #lawfedi (2/X)

The 5th Circuit has filed a substitute opinion and withdrawn the one it issued in United States v. Rahimi at the beginning of February. One material change in the opinion relates to the government's argument that historical laws disarming persons perceived at the time to be dangerous (enslaved persons, Native Americans and persons who refused to take oaths of loyalty). https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-11001-CR2.pdf
#BruenAbsurdity #domesticviolence #gunviolence #5thCircuit (1/X)

The case also includes an interesting discussion about what standard to apply at the second step of the #Bruen test: does the case require a "distinctly similar" or a "relevantly similar" analogue? #lawtwitter

Part of the fun of reading post-#Bruen cases is how delightfully snarky judges are. Judge Friot from the Western District of Oklahoma writes the historically similar laws cited by the government "shouldn't be too old, too new, too isolated, or too British." #lawtwitter https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-lewis-1239