Welcome back to Guns and Gadgets, everybody, where we break down the latest news and rulings impacting the Second Amendment and your rights as an American. Today we’re diving into a major decision from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that landed on the last day of 2024, on December 31st. This decision overturns an earlier ruling and declares that banning gun ownership by accused domestic abusers is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Let’s unpack what this means for gun rights, domestic violence law, and the broader legal landscape, because there’s a lot to this. The case in question is the U.S.

vs. Perez-Galan, which stems from a June 2022 arrest at the U.S.-Mexico border. Litzen Perez-Galan, a truck driver, was stopped in Presidio, Texas. When asked if he was armed, he admitted to carrying a pistol in his backpack, which was later found to be stolen. But that’s not all investigators uncovered. Perez-Galan was under a restraining order that was issued by a Kentucky court just one month earlier for allegedly assaulting his partner while she was holding their baby. Remember, a lot of times the case law we get is not from phenomenal subjects. According to the court records, Perez-Galan allegedly struck his partner in the face, dragged her to the bathroom, and continued the assault.

Following the incident, he was charged with fourth-degree assault and released, on bond, under the conditions that included a prohibition on owning firearms. This brings us to the federal statute in question. It’s 18 U.S.C. 922 G-8, which bans individuals under restraining orders related to domestic violence from possessing firearms. This is one of those subjects that can divide the Second Amendment community really, really easy. Let’s take a quick moment first before we get into the details of this case and thank the sponsor of the video at Sonoran Desert Institute. Guys, there are millions and millions of new gun owners here in the U.S.

The time’s never been better to learn how to be a gunsmith. This is an online college. Sonoran Desert Institute offers online firearms technology education with hands-on labs and materials shipped right to your door. Course topics range from armourer’s courses to ballistics, gunsmithing, and much, much more. Get your education and turn your passion for firearms into a successful career. Learn more at sdi.edu slash gng and get started today. Thanks to SDI for sponsoring the video. Alright, this is where this gets legally complex. Earlier, the Fifth Circuit Court had ruled that this statute violated the Second Amendment because it doesn’t really fall in line with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation or does it? Then came the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in United States v.

Rahimi, which altered the legal framework. After this SCOTUS decision, the High Court remanded Perez-Galan back to the Fifth Circuit. It’s a GVR. They granted certiorari. They vacated the ruling from the Fifth and remanded it back to the Fifth. And the Supreme Court instructed the Fifth to reconsider their stance in light of Rahimi. In its new ruling on December 31st of 2024, the Fifth Circuit reversed its earlier decision. Judge Jerry Smith explained that the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rahimi compelled them to uphold the statute. He wrote that accused domestic abusers pose a clear threat of violence, which justifies limiting their gun rights under the Second Amendment.

Judge Smith emphasized, If we cannot adhere to our former precedent without disregarding intervening Supreme Court precedent, our Court’s precedent has been implicitly overruled. This means the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the binding authority of the Supreme Court and adjusted its interpretation accordingly, which is the way it’s supposed to work. But the Court didn’t stop there. They acknowledged that parts of the law could be problematic, especially in cases of so-called mutual restraining orders. These occur when both parties in a domestic violence dispute receive protective orders, sometimes unfairly analyzing victims. Now, I’ve also seen cases where couples are going through a divorce, and divorce attorneys will often just have their client file a restraining order as part of the process, which is 100% wrong.

The ruling even pointed out that an abused woman could lose her firearm rights simply because her abuser also secured a restraining order, even if she poses no threat. Let’s break this down to the three key takeaways of this case. I’ll save you from reading the whole thing. Number one, this decision reinforces the Rahimi ruling, allowing certain restrictions on firearm ownership to stand under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution when they address specific threats of violence. Can’t be vague. They have to be specific. Number two, it highlights potential flaws in domestic violence statutes, especially regarding mutual restraining orders, which could unfairly penalize the real victims.

Number three, it sets a precedent for future cases, balancing Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns. Now, that whole public safety thing is part of what Bruin stopped states from doing. States like New York and California and Massachusetts and Connecticut and blah, blah, blah, blah. They would often restrict the Second Amendment blindly, knowingly, unconstitutionally, because they leaned on that public safety side. So we’ll see where this plays out case law-wise here. Now, this case underscores how dynamic Second Amendment jurisprudence is today. While the ruling reinforces protections against domestic violence, it also raises questions about fairness and how courts handle these delicate situations.

What do you think, my friends? Should accused domestic abusers lose their right to own a firearm to protect themselves or others? Or is this a slippery slope for constitutional freedoms? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you for watching, and please do not forget to like, share, and subscribe for more updates on the Second Amendment and legal rulings that shape our rights. Stay informed, stay safe, and I’ll see you on the next video. Take care, y’all. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.