Background
Tyler Jon Taker, a Maine resident, sought to challenge federal and state statutes prohibiting firearm possession by individuals with prior convictions or subject to protective orders. He also sued a police chief for denying his concealed carry permit application. Taker had agreed to a protective order that prohibited him from possessing firearms, which was in effect when he filed his complaint.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Taker failed to plausibly allege standing for his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because the protective order independently barred him from possessing a firearm, meaning the requested relief would not redress his injury. Regarding the damages claim against the police chief, the court found that Taker did not identify controlling precedent establishing that the denial of a permit under these specific circumstances violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus granting qualified immunity.
What it means going forward
The ruling prevents individuals subject to active protective orders from challenging firearm bans in federal court until the order expires or is vacated, and it shields officials from damages liability when the constitutional status of such bans is not clearly established.