Mediaboss Marketing

Ron Wyden U.S. Senator from Oregon

Ronald Lee Wyden was born in May 1949 in Wichita, Kansas. He attended the University of California, Santa Barbara, on a basketball scholarship, and later transferred to Stanford University where he received his undergraduate degree.He earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Oregon School of Law.

While teaching gerontology at several Oregon universities, Wyden founded the Oregon chapter of the Gray Panthers. He was also director of the Oregon Legal Services Center for the Elderly and served on the Oregon State Board of Examiners of Nursing Home Administrators.

He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served 15 years until being elected in a special election to the United States Senate. He assumed office in February 1996.

He is divorced from Laurie with whom he has two adult children and is now married to Nancy and they have three children. Wyden is Jewish.

In the News

A bill to reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would afford new protections for constitutional rights has been introduced in Congress by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Representative Zoe Lofgren of California.

At present, Section 702 allows only for the individualized and limited surveillance of non-U.S. persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and who are assessed by the intelligence community to possess or communicate specific types of foreign intelligence information identified by the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

Surveillance law has not kept up with changing times, Senator Wyden said, adding, Our bill continues to give government agencies broad authority to collect information on threats at home and abroad, including the ability to act quickly in emergencies and settle up with the court later.But it creates much stronger protections for the privacy of law-abiding Americans, and restores the warrant protections that are at the heart of the Fourth Amendment.

The FISA Court and the Director of National Intelligence have confirmed that our government conducted warrantless surveillance of millions of Americans private communications,Senator Lee said.It is imperative that Congress enact real reforms to protect our civil liberties, including warrant requirements and statutory penalties for privacy violations, in exchange for reauthorizing Section 702. Our bipartisan Government Surveillance Reform Act stops illegal government spying and restores the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

Contact this Leader

Did you pray for Senator Wyden today?You can let him know at:

The Honorable Ron Wyden Senator from Oregon 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

Go here to see the original:
Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon The Presidential Prayer ... - The Presidential Prayer Team

Bill Maher used Friday nights New Rules segment as an opportunity to offer a sweeping condemnation of political and intellectual attacks against Western civilization amid political protests related to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

To the current crop who reduce everything to being only victims or victimizers, so its really as lumped in as the toxic fruit of the victimizing West. The irony being that all marginalized people live better today because of Western ideals, not in spite of them, he said in part.

Maher began, For all the progressives and academics who refer to Israel as an outpost of Western civilization like its a bad thing, please note Western civilization is what gave the world pretty much every god-n liberal precept that liberals are supposed to adore.

The host then listed individual liberties, scientific inquiry, rule of law, religious freedom, womens rights, human rights, democracy, trial by jury freedom of speech as credits to the West before he added, Please, somebody stop us before we become enlightened again.

He also insisted that the world would be a better place if we had more Israels.

Of course, Maher continued, this message falls on deaf ears to the current crop who reduce everything to being only victims or victimizers, so its really as lumped in as the toxic fruit of the victimizing West. The irony being that all marginalized people live better today because of Western ideals, not in spite of them.

The host then cited several examples to support his point, including that Martin Luther King used Henry David Thoreaus essay civil disobedience to help shape the civil rights movement and the cop who murdered George Floyd got 21 years for violating his Fourth Amendment rights an idea we got directly from John Locke.

King often said Thoreaus 1849 essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience inspired him as a college student, and he certainly believed in the principles of justice and peace. But after Amy Schumer tweeted a video of King in which he spoke in support of Israel, Bernice King clarified how she believes her father would have responded to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

She replied, Certainly, my father was against antisemitism, as am I. He also believed militarism (along with racism and poverty) to be among the interconnected Triple Evils. I am certain he would call for Israels bombing of Palestinians to cease, for hostages to be released

In conclusion, Maher said, the woke are simple. He added, Its never about ideas. If it was would they be cheering on Hamas for their liberation, liberation to do what more freely preside over a country where there are no laws against sexual harassment, spousal rape, domestic violence, homophobia? honor killings or child marriage? This is who liberals think you should stand with.

Watch the entire New Rule in the video above.

The post Bill Maher Slams Critics of the West Amid Israel Conflict: Marginalized People Live Better Today Because of Western Ideals (Video) appeared first on TheWrap.

Read more:
Bill Maher Slams Critics of the West Amid Israel Conflict: Marginalized People Live Better Today Because of Western Ideals (Video) - Yahoo...

FBI Director Christopher Wray told a Senate committee Tuesday he opposes a proposal to require the government to get a warrant before searching through foreign surveillance data for information on Americans.

Privacy advocates and some lawmakers have raised the possibility of adding such a requirement as Congress considers the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The authority expires at the end of the year and has been the subject of heated debate on Capitol Hill.

Section 702 allows the U.S. government to collect the digital communications of foreigners who are located outside the country. But some lawmakers from both parties have lambasted the breadth of the surveillance power and zeroed in on privacy concerns, such as how it allows U.S. authorities to run warrantless searches for information on Americans.

Wray on Tuesday urged the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to reauthorize the foreign surveillance authority but leave out changes that he said could hamper the FBIs ability to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

With everything going on in the world, imagine if a foreign terrorist overseas directs an operative to carry out an attack here on our own backyard, but were not able to disrupt it because the FBIs authorities have been so watered down, Wray told lawmakers.

In written testimony to the panel, Wray said a warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban on a U.S. person query of information previously obtained through use of Section 702.

Thats because search applications would not satisfy the legal standard to get court approval, Wray wrote. When the standard could be met, it would mean the use of scarce resources and take up significant time that the government often does not have in a world of evolving threats, he wrote.

Sen. Rand Paul, the top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, said Tuesday that the FBI continues to misuse its Section 702 authority.

You would think wed be going after foreigners, but we are using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to go after Americans, Paul said.

An independent U.S. government board weeks ago recommended that Congress add greater oversight for when authorities want to search for information on Americans. The board said authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISC, should be required for those types of searches.

The FISC itself has found persistent and widespread compliance problems with the FBIs searches under Section 702. A court opinion released earlier this year found that the FBI had improperly searched foreign surveillance information using the last names of a U.S. senator and a state-level politician.

While the specifics remain unclear, requiring a warrant or court order when searching for information about Americans could become a sticking point as the authoritys end-of-year expiration date approaches.

The leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary committees both have spoken critically about the current program.

Senate Judiciary Chair Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., has pledged to only support Section 702 reauthorization if there are significant reforms, which he said means first and foremost, addressing the warrantless surveillance of Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Also at Tuesdays hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas endorsed the renewal of Section 702 and said letting the authority expire would leave our country vulnerable to attacks supported by American citizens.

And it would cripple our ability to identify and secure American citizens who are the targets of such attacks, he told lawmakers.

A third official appearing before lawmakers, Christine Abizaid, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said Section 702 provides key indications on terrorist plans and gives authorities strategic insight into foreign terrorists and their networks overseas.

Read this article:
Surveillance authority change could harm ability to stop attacks, FBI ... - Roll Call

When he took the bench, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Rowan Wilson was welcomed as a breath of fresh air by progressive lawmakers and activists. That perception may be challenged now that hes joined with the courts conservatives to affirm law enforcements ability to search DNA databanks for the relatives of criminals.

Last week, the court voted 4-3 to allow law enforcement to do the searches, with judges Michael Garcia, Madeline Singas and Anthony Cannataro concurring with Wilsons majority opinion. Two of the courts more liberal judges Jenny Rivera and Caitlin Halligan recused themselves from the case and were replaced by Stephen Lindley and Michael Lynch. Lindley wrote the dissenting opinion, which Lynch and Shirley Troutman joined.

The case was brought by Terrence Stevens and Benjamin Joseph, two siblings with family members who have gone through the criminal court system. They filed suit in 2018 against the state Division of Criminal Justice Services, its executive director Michael Green and the New York State Commission on Forensic Science. The brothers accused the commission of exceeding its power under state law by giving itself the right to crawl genealogy records to find links to suspects.

These individuals (related to people convicted of crimes) are subjected to scrutiny by law enforcement for no other reason other than the possibility that their genes are similar to those of a Databanked Individual, the 2018 suit said.

DNA evidence has been a tool in criminal cases in the U.S. since 1986 New York created its own DNA database in 1996 but in recent years police have been able to rely on ancestry-tracking services to find suspects.

Wilson's opinion said that the state legislature granted the Commission on Forensic Science the right to make changes to policy when it created it.

On the merits, this appeal presents two straightforward questions: (A) does the legislature have the power to delegate rulemaking authority over familial DNA searches to the Commission; and (B) did the legislature do so, he wrote. The Court unanimously agrees that the legislature has that power; the disagreement is whether the Databank Act granted the Commission the authority to promulgate the (Familial DNA Search) Regulations. We hold that it did so.

David Siffert, the legal director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project and an organizer with the progressive court reform group The Court New York Deserves, said that Wilson was caught between preserving the privacy rights of New Yorkers and preserving the power of state agencies.

I think he got it wrong, Siffert said of Wilsons opinion that the Commission on Forensic Science had the authority to allow familial DNA searches. He said that he agreed with the dissenting opinion, which argued that the commission only had the power to regulate full DNA matches, not the partial matches that occur when law enforcement searches for family members with similar DNA. But Siffert, an outspoken supporter of Wilsons nomination, also said that he doesnt think one case should decide the efficacy of a judges work.

He also noted that Fourth Amendment privacy rights werent mentioned in either Wilsons majority opinion or the dissent, even though allowing law enforcement to crawl DNA databases obviously puts peoples genetic privacy at stake. The case focused entirely on whether or not the state Legislature had given the Commission on Forensic Science the authority to regulate DNA searches, without even considering whether those searches would violate the Fourth Amendment which Siffert said was a sign of the general failure of our courts to uphold the Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals decision could prompt the state Legislature to step in to pass a law prohibiting law enforcement from searching DNA databases for potential familial DNA matches. State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal told City & State that the decision calls for clarification by the legislature.

Hoylman-Sigal, a supporter of Wilsons appointment to the Court of Appeals, said that DNA is an emerging technology and legislation hasnt adapted to its advances. He also called for the NYPDs DNA database which is separate from the states DNA database to be shut down. Only one database should exist, overseen by the state, he said

The Manhattan lawmaker added that while it was important to balance privacy concerns with the needs of victims and their families, people shouldnt be routinely treated as suspects.

Antony Haynes, director of cybersecurity & data privacy at Albany Law School, said that law enforcements use of DNA searches can reinforce racial bias.

Since black and brown communities are overpoliced, police databases are more likely to contain their DNA. Allowing police to use family DNA may end up supercharging surveillance of communities of color, sweeping in DNA from uninvolved persons, and potentially furthering racial oppression, Haynes wrote in an email. One of the basic principles of American jurisprudence is to avoid unjustly harming the innocent. Because familial DNA testing targets innocent siblings, parents and children, such use appears to be contrary to this presumption, and would seem to violate the rights to genetic privacy, due process, and equal treatment under New York law.

The decision from New Yorks highest court will have ramifications for the future of policing and privacy in New York. While it may become easier to find criminals and crack cold cases, New Yorkers' genetic information will be increasingly accessible even if theyve never been arrested. Like Hoylman-Sigal, Haynes said that the expanded use of DNA searches by law enforcement was ultimately a balancing act.

For example, in California, law enforcement secretly accessed genetic data from private companies and found the Golden State Killer through family members DNA, he said. On the law and order front, it's wonderful because weve caught a serial killer, but on the privacy front, its terrible because the family members did not really consent to this use. There's a difficult balancing act between the desire to promote law and order and the need to preserve privacy and freedom.

Link:
New York's progressive chief judge joins with conservatives to ... - City & State

LISTEN: Our podcast episode onthe decades-long fight to close the 'boyfriend loophole.'

Editor's Note: If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic abuse, use a safe computer and contact help. Call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800.799.SAFE (7233), or visithttps://www.thehotline.org. Find more information on the 'boyfriend loophole' from the Giffords Law Centerhere.

On Point'sPaige Sutherland reports on a Supreme Court case being heard on Nov. 7 that has the potential to grant firearms access to hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers who are currently prohibited.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: I'm Meghna Chakrabarti. This is On Point.

On June 25, 2022, advocates against domestic violence won a decades-long fight when President Joe Biden announced that the so-called boyfriend loophole had been closed.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: While this Bill doesnt do everything I want, it does include actions that Ive long called for that are going to save lives.

CHAKRABARTI: The president there when he signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The act now prohibits convicted domestic violence abusers from owning or buying a gun if they dated the victim.

The prohibition used to apply only if the abuser was married, shared a home or had a child with the victim.

This is a change that advocates had been pushing for since 1996 given that at least 600 women in America are shot and killed by an intimate partner every year, and half of the shooters had dated, but didnt marry, their victims.

But there was little to celebrate for advocates. Because just two days earlier on June 23, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling that could dismantle many of our countrys firearms restrictions, including those meant to protect domestic violence victims.

And on this coming Tuesday, November 7th, the Supreme Court is set to hear another case that has the potential to grant firearms access to hundreds of thousands of domestic abusers who are currently prohibited.

For this special podcast extra, On Points Paige Sutherland is here to tell that story.

PAIGE SUTHERLAND: At the center of this case is Zackey Rahimi. Hes 23 years old and from Kennedale, Texas.

In April of 2017, Rahimi started dating Cintia Medina Garcia. They went out for about two and a half years and had a child together, whos now 5 years old.

According to Garcia, verbal and physical abuse was a part of their relationship from the start. And it never stopped.

On January 16, 2020, Garcia petitioned for a protective order against Rahimi. In that petition she details the abuse she says she suffered, paragraph after paragraph.

Garcia refers to Rahimi as Zack. Her words are read here by a colleague:

Zacks violence towards me has sent me to the emergency room. Zack has broken my cell phone so that I could not seek help or call the police. Zack has taken my keys to prevent me from seeking help or calling the police. Zack has pulled a gun on me. Zack has fired a gun in my direction. Zack has threatened to kill me.

SUTHERLAND: And then she goes on to say:

I need a protective order because I am afraid that Zack will kill me and my son.

SUTHERLAND: The protective order was granted. Under federal law, it barred Rahimi from buying and possessing firearms. It also required him to turn in guns already in his possession. Something he never did.

NEWS CLIP: Suspect Zackey Rahimi, NIBIN, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, linked him to a string of shootings that occurred over a stretch of months.

SUTHERLAND: This string of shootings took place in and around Arlington, Texas between December 2020 and January 2021.

Thats almost a year after Garcias protective order was granted.

The shooting spree includes the time Rahimi allegedly sold drugs to someone and then fired multiple shots into their home. Another time, Rahimi got into a car accident, and then allegedly shot at the other driver. Then there was the time he allegedly fired multiple shots in the air after his friends credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant.

Given that most of these incidents were in public with witnesses present, police identified Rahimi pretty quickly.

On January 14, 2021, an Arlington Police Detective obtained a warrant to search Rahimis home. There, officers found a loaded pistol along with a loaded rifle. And in the top drawer of Rahimis dresser they found the domestic violence protective order, signed by Rahimi, stating that he was prohibited from having firearms.

Rahimi was arrested. And on September 23rd, he pleaded guilty to violating his firearms ban and was sentenced to 73 months in federal prison.

Shortly after sentencing, Rahimis lawyers appealed, arguing that the federal firearms ban Rahimi was subject to is unconstitutional.

Rahimi's lawyers were not the first to make such a claim. Most recently, in 2020, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard a similar argument in U.S. v. McGinnis. In that case, the court ruled under the long-established two-part test for Second Amendment cases, which was created under the Supreme Courts decision in D.C. vs. Heller back in 2008.

Kelly Roskam is the director of law and policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, a research organization seeking to reduce gun violence. She explains how that two-part test has long worked.

ROSKAM: So first, the court asks, does the regulation on firearm possession and usage burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

I need a protective order because I am afraid that Zack will kill me and my son.

SUTHERLAND: The court then moves on to the second part of the test. Is this regulation in line with an important government interest?

ROSKAM: Think of it like a sliding scale of how important a government interest is and how closely the law is tailored to achieve that government interest. Strict scrutiny being extremely exacting requiring a close fit for an extremely important government interest and intermediate scrutiny, requiring a less close fit, but still for an important government objective.

Most cases after Heller applied intermediate scrutiny, this middle level of scrutiny and upheld the vast majority of gun violence prevention laws by finding that the law was sufficiently related to the compelling government interest of public safety.

SUTHERLAND: For both McGinnis and Rahimi, the court applied intermediate scrutiny. Stating quote reducing domestic gun abuse is a compelling government interest.

The court determined the firearm regulation passed the two-part test. So, its constitutional. Thus, Rahimi lost his appeal.

But something momentous happened that very same month. On June 23 last year, the grounds on which the courts have based their Second Amendment opinions on for decades shifted, in a big way.

NEWS CLIP: The Supreme Court here significantly expanding gun rights and really expanding the scope of the Second Amendment for the first time since 2008.

SUTHERLAND: The case referenced in that clip from CNN was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen in which the Supreme Court set a precedent that gun laws should be consistent with the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. The two-part test was no more.

So, Rahimi went back to court.

This time Rahimis legal team only had to prove that the firearm ban for those with domestic protective orders against them was a restriction the founding fathers would not have seen as legitimate.

Heres Rahimis lawyer James Matthew Wright during oral arguments in August last year.

JAMES MATTHEW WRIGHT: The founding generation was intimately familiar with the scourge of domestic violence. They never addressed that problem through any sort of firearms restriction. They did address the problem through other means, typically societal pressure, but also shaming punishments, etc. No disarmament, no bans.

The founding generation was intimately familiar with the scourge of domestic violence. They never addressed that problem through any sort of firearms restriction.

SUTHERLAND: On February 2nd this year the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because there was no historical tradition of firearm restrictions for domestic abusers, the federal firearms ban was unconstitutional. Heres Kelly Roskam again.

ROSKAM: The court says at the time of the founding it was considered a private matter: domestic violence. It was not something that they considered a danger to public safety. Therefore, there is no national historical tradition of firearm regulation of persons subject to domestic violence protective orders. And therefore, it is unconstitutional.

APRIL ZEOLI: I think this absolutely places the ability to have a gun over domestic violence victims.

SUTHERLAND: Thats April Zeoli, an associate professor at the Institute for Firearm Injury and Prevention at the University of Michigan, where she focuses on domestic violence related firearm restrictions.

She says that the Fifth Circuit ruling has the potential to unravel decades of advocacy work for domestic abuse survivors.

ZEOLI: People who are victimized by their intimate partners rely on these firearm restrictions to help keep them safe. This is not abstract. This is not, you know, an esoteric legal question. This is people's lives. Literally, their lives, their level of fear, their ability to feel safe.

SUTHERLAND: Zeoli also points out, at the time of the founding, most of the victims of domestic violence who need such protections didnt have a say on what laws did or didnt get passed because they were women.

For now, the Fifth Circuit ruling only applies to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, where its jurisdiction lies. But in the coming days, the Supreme Court will hear this case. And if they uphold this ruling, anyone in the country with a domestic violence protective order against them could potentially own and buy a gun.

Rahimi, however, won't be able to exercise his 2nd Amendment right quite yet. Hes currently in jail awaiting his other state charges.

I reached out to the lawyers of both Cintia Medina Garcia and Zackey Rahimi, and they both declined to talk to me or connect me with their clients.

Immediately after the Fifth Circuit ruling advocates against domestic violence started ringing alarm bells. Their message: Without this firearm regulation, people will die.

Ruth Glenn is the President of Public Affairs at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Here she is speaking at a Senate hearing back in March.

RUTH GLENN: Some abusive intimate partners will legally access firearms they were previously forbidden from possessing, and some will use those firearms to terrorize or even kill their victims or others.

Some abusive intimate partners will legally access firearms they were previously forbidden from possessing, and some will use those firearms to terrorize or even kill their victims or others.

SUTHERLAND: In a 49-page amicus brief filed in August - dozens of domestic violence advocacy organizations laid out their main arguments for why they believe this ruling should be overturned and the firearm ban reinstated nationwide.

One, those with protective orders against them are dangerous and shouldnt be able to have guns. According to a 2003 study by the American Journal of Public Health, when a male domestic abuser has access to a gun there is a five times greater chance their female partner will be killed.

And Kelly Roskam of Johns Hopkins says, contrary to the Fifth Circuits ruling, this is not just a private matter, its also a public safety issue. And she says thats something the founding fathers would have paid attention to.

ROSKAM: So my colleague at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Lisa Geller, found that 68% of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence or killed an intimate partner in the mass shooting. So this is not something that only happens within the privacy of private homes. This is something that affects all of us directly.

68% of mass shooters have a history of domestic violence or killed an intimate partner in the mass shooting.

SUTHERLAND: And ultimately, advocates say, this firearm ban works. Heres Professor Zeoli again.

ZEOLI: studies have found that these laws are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide consistently. You know, multiple different studies done in multiple different ways have found these results. And that's why I'm comfortable saying it looks like they work. It's not just one study, you know, it's many at this point.

SUTHERLAND: But advocates could have an uphill climb in convincing the conservative leaning Supreme Court that such domestic violence protections are compatible with the Second Amendment under the new Bruen test.

In his written opinion in the Rahimi case, Fifth Circuit judge Cory Wilson writes that the governments reasoning for taking away a domestic abusers right to buy and own a gun would be like justifying taking that right away from speeders, political nonconformists, people who dont recycle or people who don't drive an electric car.

Another hurdle advocates say they need to counter is an argument that domestic violence protective orders are too consequential to be decided in civil court.

As judge Cory Wilson wrote in his ruling, the resulting prohibition disarms people who have quote merely been civilly adjudicated.

Attorney John Davis echoed this point in an amicus brief on behalf of the Center for Prosecutor Integrity. Thats a nonprofit focused on improving due process. He told us that because civil proceedings have a lower bar and move more quickly, they can potentially prejudice criminal proceedings.

JOHN DAVIS: We are not at all sympathetic to the accusations made against Mr. Rahimi, but in fact, none of them were proven. And it's quite common for those accusations to get out as gossip, just to try to prejudice a court in advance that he's a bad person. Therefore, he does not deserve due process. And we don't have a civilization if we follow that.

SUTHERLAND: Davis points out that besides losing ones Second Amendment right, once a protection order is granted that person may lose access to their home, their children, incur lawyer fees as well as reputational harm before the accusations are fully vetted.

DAVIS: And one of the difficulties is the political perception that we don't need the Constitution where we're addressing a worthwhile social problem like domestic violence.

It's not just the Second Amendment rights, this just happens to be the right we're addressing in this case. It applies to many, many other First, Second Amendment rights, Sixth Amendment rights, Fifth, Fourth Amendment rights because this involves seizure of a person's property, the whole panoply of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent the easy forfeit of all of those rights based upon a very lax proceeding such as a restraining order proceeding.

SUTHERLAND: Thats why Davis argues that if domestic abusers are to be disarmed, it should be through the criminal justice system.

But advocates like Professor April Zeoli say that system does not move quickly enough to protect potential victims.

ZEOLI: If I am in danger, I call the police. And then I have to wait to see what happens. Were there charges made? And if charges are made when is there going to be a trial or is there a guilty plea and will there be a verdict of guilty. And all of that if you get through the entire process, through to, you know, a guilty verdict that takes months and months and sometimes longer than that. So this restraining order is a flexible and quick tool to use to increase your safety right now.

SUTHERLAND: Professor Zeoli also adds that although protective orders are granted through civil proceedings, there still is due process.

ZEOLI: Many people think that a restraining order is an incredibly easy thing to get. All you really have to do is fill out your name and the name of the person you want it against, and voila, you have a restraining order. It is, in fact, not that easy. In fact, in Michigan, you know where I am. Just about half of restraining order petitions are denied. So these are not being rubber stamped. A judge does evaluate them.

SUTHERLAND: Judge Cory Wilson writes in his opinion that the ban quote embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society, but that it does not outweigh the burden it puts on ones Second Amendment rights.

With the Supreme Courts conservative tilt and its recent ruling in Bruen, they may reach that same conclusion. And given Rahimis lengthy police record, legal experts ask: If the firearm ban cant be upheld for him, who could it be upheld for? For On Point, Im Paige Sutherland.

Read more here:
Should domestic abusers have gun rights? | On Point - WBUR News