Texas never wanted ‘bad guys’ to have guns. Now, a court says we can’t stop them | Opinion

For 30 years, Texas law has upheld the heroism of a “good guy with a gun.”

But now, a federal appeals court is letting guys who aren’t good have their guns.

It’s the second recent jarring decision dramatically loosening gun laws. A three-judge panel has ruled that the right to self-defense extends to gun owners while they are under domestic violence restraining orders.

Zackey Rahimi, 23, of Kennedale, was not a good guy with a gun.

He was under a February 2020 civil court order not to harass, stalk or threaten an ex-girlfriend and not to carry a firearm.

Over 37 days the next December and January, he shot into somebody’s house after selling them Percocet, fired at two drivers and an off-duty Tarrant County deputy constable, and shot into the air at a Whataburger.

Federal prosecutors tried to punish him for violating the Tarrant County civil court order. He shouldn’t have even had a gun.

Now, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says, forget domestic violence court orders.

Give the guys back their guns.

Right or wrong under the Second Amendment — and there is a valid argument that court orders and “red flag” laws can’t override gun rights before conviction — the decision makes it much harder for police and courts to protect partners and families from domestic violence.

The decision comes on the heels of a federal appeals court ruling that 18- to 20-year-olds have the same gun rights as other adults and must be allowed to carry handguns.

Agencies that protect families from domestic violence now have one less tool to prevent family shootings, partner-killings and murder-suicides.

The ruling “potentially puts victims of domestic violence in far greater danger,” said Ken Shetter, president of the One Safe Place crime-fighting commission.

“There is a reason state and federal law prohibit those who commit domestic violence from possessing firearms — it is one of the two most significant indicators of risk of a homicide,” Shetter wrote by email.

He also cited studies showing that more than half of the men who have killed police officers have a documented history of partner violence.

“The next step for domestic violence agencies is to understand how this ruling is going to impact protective orders and account for that in our safety planning,” he wrote.

Imagine how gut-wrenching it will be now to decide whether to seek a protective order against a domestic partner with a gun.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that the Justice Department will appeal the decision.

“Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm,” he wrote, taking the position that the law is constitutional “whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.”

.But the 5th Circuit panel’s ruling concluded that Congress cannot use civil violations to deny gun rights.

“Under the Government’s reading,” the ruling reads, “Congress could remove ‘unordinary’ or ‘irresponsible’ or ‘’non-law-abiding’ people ... Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? ... Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless ... entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees.”

Arlington Mayor Jim Ross said police will continue to enforce state and local laws to protect families.

“This had to do with the federal law that said he couldn’t carry a firearm,” Ross, a former police officer, said.

“This guy was shooting at people and threatening people — our police can still do something about that. Protective orders are still available and can be enforced.”

State Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Baytown, celebrated on Twitter.

“Whether you like the outcome or not — the Constitution prevents government interference with unpopular actions,” he wrote.

Former state Sen. Jerry Patterson, the original author of Texas’ handgun carry laws, offered a solution.

Domestic violence suspects could be barred from access to firearms as a condition of pre-trial release, he wrote by email. In the same way, suspects accused of a terroristic threat can be barred.

That sounds like another trip to the 5th Circuit.