For 30 years, a federal law has banned people under restraining orders from possessing firearms. Let us pause for a moment to contemplate how much sense this law makes. Ah, but 30 years? Not so fast, sayeth the 5th Circuit. From CNN:

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing. “Through that lens, we conclude that (the law’s) ban on possession of firearms is an ‘outlier’ that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the 5th Circuit said[…]The court’s opinion was written by Judge Cory Todd Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He was joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones and Judge James Ho, another Trump appointee who also wrote a concurrence.

The 5th Circuit panel was not persuaded by the historical parallels put forward by the US Justice Department, which was defending the conviction of a person who possessed a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order that had been imposed after he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend. The Justice Department argued that the domestic violence law was analogous to 17th-and 18th century regulations that disarmed “dangerous” persons. “The purpose of these ‘dangerousness’ laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another,” the 5th Circuit opinion read. “Therefore, laws disarming ‘dangerous’ classes of people are not ‘relevantly similar’” to “serve as historical analogues.”

Let us pause again and consider the swamp of absurdity upon which the Justice Department was forced to argue its case, courtesy of the carefully constructed conservative majority on the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The DOJ had to find historical analogs from the 17th and 18th Century in order to prevail, which it was never going to do anyway because the 5th Circuit is thick with larval Scalias. Domestic violence has been with us always, but can we all at least agree that our understanding of domestic violence has improved since the early days of the Washington administration? Jeebus H. Christmas, we are through the looking glass, and the bedroom wall behind it as well.

The Justice Department signaled Thursday night that it plans to appeal the ruling. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that Congress had determined the statute “nearly 30 years ago…Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision,” he said. The Justice Department did not specify its next step in seeking review of the ruling, which could include asking the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc rehearing by all the judges on the court, or asking the US Supreme Court to take up an appeal.

Guns or knives, General Garland? Unless the DOJ has a medium on salary who can conjure up Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Adams, or Mary Wollstonecraft to carry its argument, I don’t hold out much hope for the 21st Century under either alternative.

Maybe they all should go backto powdered wigs and waistcoats. source