Federal Court Overturns Idaho Judge's Second Amendment Ruling

When someone gets slapped with a domestic violence restraining order, they temporarily lose their Second Amendment rights. The argument is that they're a probable danger to at least one person, and since a judge signs off on the order, that's sufficient due process.

Now, I don't agree with that, simply because too many judges will sign such orders as a matter of form. They're often concerned that if they don't sign it, and the woman gets murdered by her allegedly abusive ex, it'll be on him.

It seems that a judge in Idaho agrees with me that it's unconstitutional to strip someone of their rights based mostly on allegations.

Unfortunately for that judge and me, a federal judge disagreed with us.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a ruling from Idaho District Judge B. Lynn Winmill last year that a domestic protection order against an east Idaho man unfairly violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Ryan Vandyke had already violated a no-contact order against him when he walked into the Bingham County Courthouse in 2023 ago with a gun in his bag. He was charged with felony illegal gun possession, but successfully argued that Second Amendment rights can still apply even when charged with a crime, and because he wasn’t deemed a credible threat against the protectee, his gun rights shouldn’t have been taken away.

“The whole standard by which courts view issues with regard to whether or not the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been violated, changed as recently as 2022.” explained McKay Cunningham, Professor and Director of the Master of Applied Public Policy Program at the College of Idaho in Caldwell.

Cunningham has previously taught at the University of Idaho Law School and the Concordia School of Law, in addition to practicing as an attorney for nine years.

Bruen changed an awful lot, to be sure, but the Ninth Circuit is actually on firm legal ground in this one, from a layman's perspective.

Bruen changed much, but Rahimi noted that the analogs don't have to be one-to-one and upheld the conviction of a man who was charged with having a gun while being under a domestic violence protection order.

In other words, Rahimi was almost the exact same case as this one, so it's not really surprising that the Ninth Circuit ruled that way, especially with legal precedent really being on their side.

Normally, you can chalk up anti-gun decisions by the Ninth Circuit as just the Ninth Circus being the Ninth Circus. This time, I'm afraid they're on firmer ground than the Idaho judge was.

I don't like it, but it doesn't change what it is.

Yes, it's still a travesty of justice, at least in my opinion, because there's no trial before one of those orders is issued. The accused doesn't get to defend himself, really, and if he doesn't have an attorney, he's on his own. There's no court-appointed attorney for protective orders, so he faces losing his rights without any real means of defending himself from the accusation.

I'm always going to have an issue with that. The Ninth Circuit, less so, apparently.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.