US v. Rahimi (22-915)

[Inigoes]

Watch the June 22, 2023 conference to see if the SCOTUS will accept the US government challenging domestic violence orders against gun owners.

Docket for 22-915

Starting pistol: Supreme Court’s new firearms standard tested on domestic abusers owning guns - Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's gun law last year has been hailed by Second Amendment advocates as a landmark decision and a fundamental new test of firearms law. In Part One of this series, Starting Pistol, the Washington Examiner investigated how the ruling in New York...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Links to the older threads:

​

Why is the Govt seeking cert on a 2A Case? Beware.

Stephen Halbrook discusses why the DoJ wants this case to go to SCOTUS; the hope is for more infringement, of course. From the link: "The Biden Administration is salivating at the prospect of United States v. Rahimi, about which I've written previously, being the next Second Amendment case to...

www.mdshooters.com

​

5th Circuit finds part of law prohibiting some people from possessing unconstitutional in US v Rahimi

Liberal heads are exploding because a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit has unanimously ruled that a section of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Buren. This effects civil action restraining order prohibitions on possessing firearms and ammunition. Link to Guns and Gadgets...

www.mdshooters.com

​

https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/...eral-gun-control-law-unconstitutional.273585/

​

 

[Inigoes]

Thursday is conference day

Supreme Court considers recoil from landmark gun rights ruling

One court ruled that federal law cannot bar someone from owning a gun just because that person is subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Inigoes]

I am hoping for an unceremoniously denial of certiorari in the June 26th orders list, smacking down the DOJ and Biden.

A quick scathing denial of cert would be okay too. "We said what we meant, and meant what we said in Bruen!".

 

[Allen65]

I am hoping for an unceremoniously denial of certiorari in the June 26th orders list, smacking down the DOJ and Biden.

A quick scathing denial of cert would be okay too. "We said what we meant, and meant what we said in Bruen!".

Unfortunately, the "problem child" CAs (2,4,7) only seem capable of reading what they want to see out of Heller and Bruen. Actually, with Heller, those courts have been paying more attention to the dicta from the dissent than then the decision itself.

 

[Bob A]

Thoughtcrime still remains a Progressive dream at this time.

Rahimi should be incarcerated for assault, battery various laws regarding discharge of a firearm; there's no question that he's a bad guy.

The problem is barring people based on someone's opinion that they might do something wrong sometime.

Do the crime, do the time. That sort of resilt might have a positive effect on people who might be thinking about their future actions.

 

[Inigoes]

No updates to the docket so far...

 

[Inigoes]

Nothing in today's orders

 

[Inigoes]

Cert Granted!

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063023zor_b07d.pdf

 

[FrankZ]

Cert Granted!

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063023zor_b07d.pdf

This is gonna be an interesting one.

 

[AliasNeo07]

I don't know how I feel about this

 

[Inigoes]

I don't know how I feel about this

How would you feel to have your 2A rights denied over a speeding ticket? A speeding ticket is not a criminal violation per se.

That is essentially the case here. Instead of government doing their job and prosecuting a bad guy who did bad things, they gave Rahimi a civil citation and said play nice.

If the government wants to go soft on crime, it cannot make up rules to keep one from exercising their constitutional rights.

 

[AliasNeo07]

How would you feel to have your 2A rights denied over a speeding ticket? A speeding ticket is not a criminal violation per se.

That is essentially the case here. Instead of government doing their job and prosecuting a bad guy who did bad things, they gave Rahimi a civil citation and said play nice.

If the government wants to go soft on crime, it cannot make up rules to keep one from exercising their constitutional rights.

I was under the understanding that he had a protective order against him that was signed off on by a judge.

I just don't like that this is a test case because the guy sounds like a piece of crap. I don't think non-violent felons should have their second amendment rights stripped from them, but domestic abusers? I don't know.

I do realize that civil orders are protective in nature but they become criminal if they are violated. I just went through them with a friend of mine who ERPOd her husband. While I have mixed feelings about red flag laws in general, and certainly don't subscribe to Trump's philosophy of "take the guns first, due process second," am I glad that a piece of shi* who threatened to kill his wife via text message had his guns taken from him? I am.

We have sort of done a good job of late of bringing new people into the fold. Mass shootings have certainly held the 2A agenda back, but it's great that women and minorities are the fastest growing segment. We need more representation in our community. However, if the Supreme Court rules that people with protective orders against them can not be made to surrender their firearms, that makes us seem extreme. And like it or not, the court of public opinion matters. The court of public opinion eventually shapes actual courts.

Plenty of people in our community said Trump's bump stock band wasn't that big of a deal. A small price to pay to preserve our Second Amendment rights. I did not agree with that necessarily, but if we were going to make a concession, it should probably be this.

Good people should have guns. Bad people shouldn't. I realize that people with protective orders have not been convicted of a crime, but people do have to show actual evidence and have a judge sign off on the order. I am torn.

 

[Inigoes]

I was under the understanding that he had a protective order against him that was signed off on by a judge.

I just don't like that this is a test case because the guy sounds like a piece of crap. I don't think non-violent felons should have their second amendment rights stripped from them, but domestic abusers? I don't know.

There once was a fella who was a real piece of work too, His name was Ernesto Miranda.

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights

A non-violent felony is a vastly different crime class from domestic abuse which is a misdemeanor (could be classified as a violent misdemeanor).

 

[AliasNeo07]

There once was a fella who was a real piece of work too, His name was Ernesto Miranda.

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/miranda-rights

Non-violent felons is a vastly different crime class from domestic abuse which is a misdemeanor (could be classified as a violent misdemeanor).

I do understand what you're saying. And I agree with you to an extent. I'm just saying I'm not crazy to see how the court rules on this and how the court of a public opinion will view it.

I think we all agree that good people should be able to have guns and have them pretty much anywhere, and that violent, bad people, should not. The question in my mind is whether the evidentiary requirement to get a protective order is enough to strip someone of their second amendment rights. Certainly it is well established that if they're convicted of certain violent crimes, they cannot own firearms. So where do we draw the line? It's tricky.

 

[Inigoes]

That is a very simple line too.

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they need to be removed from the general public.

When a person proves that they cannot be trusted by committing a violent crime, they go to jail, period.

 

[FrankZ]

That is a very simple line too.

If someone cannot be trusted with a firearm, then they need to be removed from the general public.

When a person proves that they cannot be trusted by committing a violent crime, they go to jail, period.

This is the way.

 

[Bertfish]

I'd rather see rulings on assault weapons, magazines, and the Hughes amendment first.

 

[Inigoes]

That is the judge's job to decide that very issue.

Is the person so terrible that they can't be trusted in the general public or are there mitigating circumstances (such as self-defense)?

Is the perp a runner, who will jump bail?

 

[Muleskinner]

The entire reason we have so many gun control laws in this country is because there are "legal" restrictions on gun ownership. As long as the 2A id "regulated" gun control will continue. No one should lose their gun rights...period..If a person is convicted of a crime committed with a firearm they should be removed from society for a long time...that's how your deter crime with a gun...

 

[pcfixer]

Docket for 22-915

The Fifth Circuit held that the Second Amendment precludes that widespread, sensible response to the deadly toll of domestic violence. The court’s decision nullifies an exceptionally important federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8).

Interesting question.
Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) (8) Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (d) (8) and (g) (8) concern the prohibition against disposal of firearms to, or receipt or possession of firearms by, persons who are subject to domestic violence protection orders.


(8)who is subject to a court order that—
(A)
was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B)
restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i)
includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii)
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or