US v. Rahimi (22-915)

[FrankZ]

SCOTUS didn’t take this to uphold CA5’s ruling which took down a Federal Statute.

Lefty read but a good take on the arguments today.

» The Supreme Court appears poised to rein in its worst decision on guns, in US v. Rahimi

About 40 minutes into Tuesday’s Supreme Court argument asking whether a federal law prohibiting domestic abusers from owning guns is unconstitutional, Chie

cherumbu.com

At least they don't show any bias in this. /

That one hurt to read.

 

[Inigoes]

Could go either way

Both sides muddied the arguments

 

[whistlersmother]

Yea, that article was bias.

I liked that Bruen has spread chaos and confusion through the lower courts - just those lower courts that didn't actually understand what Bruen told them to do - much like the writer of that trash article.

 

[FrankZ]

My biggest worry with this one is the court will say disarming "dangerous" people is okie dokie, but fail to define "dangerous" and we will have the whole sensitive places nonsense. The opinion will only be as good as the weakest part.

 

[Bob A]

I hope that SCOTUS will consider "due process of law" to continue to be a desideratum in this country.

 

[krucam]

Hate to say it but think they will overturn this on dangerous folks grounds, and may narrow Bruin.
Hope Im wrong…

 

[Blacksmith101]

Our favorite long winded lawyer, other than Fabs, thinks it wasn't too bad:

HUGE 2A SCOTUS NEWS TODAY: RAHIMI BACKFIRES ON DOJ...​

 

[MattFinals718]

Our favorite long winded lawyer, other than Fabs, thinks it wasn't too bad:

HUGE 2A SCOTUS NEWS TODAY: RAHIMI BACKFIRES ON DOJ...​

I have somewhat more mixed feelings. I felt like the public defender was inarticulate and not the best person to make the case for our cause. We're also going to face a steep uphill battle because Rahimi the man is just not someone we should want to hold up as a poster child for 2A rights.

At the end of the day, what's going to carry this one is convincing the court to value due process and also consider the current political and gender relations climate (where a man can be accused of being a domestic abuser without evidence, and the law tends to reflexively take the accuser's side over the accused in the absence of evidence).

 

[Alutacon]

The guy arguing for Rahimi was awful.

 

[Alutacon]

My biggest worry with this one is the court will say disarming "dangerous" people is okie dokie, but fail to define "dangerous" and we will have the whole sensitive places nonsense. The opinion will only be as good as the weakest part.

This is the real concern.

 

[Bob A]

SCOTUS better man up and support actual due process. Removing an enumeraed right on the basis of a civil complaint, absent any actual criminal activity, is a bridge way too far.

If someone is too dangerous to be armed, why is he walking free?

It's not the weapon that creates the danger, after all.

 

[Afrikeber]

If SCOTUS lets this fly it’s a slippery slope in future decisions.

This case will tear down the leftist's disarmament flagship post heller.

It is bound to whip them all into a tizzy.

I’m hoping that’s the case.

 

[Tebonski]

We know how the three democrat women, however they are defined, are going to vote. So all they need is Roberts and another Republican. Roberts cares about his legacy, true vanity. Kegs will support Roberts.

 

[Allen65]

I hope that SCOTUS will consider "due process of law" to continue to be a desideratum in this country.

Exactly this. There is plenty of history of rights being deprived after due process (imprisoning convicts, or involuntary committment by a court, for example). Deprivation of a right without due process is unconstitutional, and those domestic orders are often issued without due process, and sometimes even ex parte.

 

[pcfixer]

SCOTUS better man up and support actual due process. Removing an enumeraed right on the basis of a civil complaint, absent any actual criminal activity, is a bridge way too far.

If someone is too dangerous to be armed, why is he walking free?

It's not the weapon that creates the danger, after all.

Yes Sir exactly. Like what part of enumerated and shall not be infringed don't they understand.

What Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights Does an American Have?

United States citizens enjoy written Constitutional rights and unwritten rights. What enumerated and unenumerated rights does an American have?

constitutionus.com

 

[pcfixer]

Exactly this. There is plenty of history of rights being deprived after due process (imprisoning convicts, or involuntary committment by a court, for example). Deprivation of a right without due process is unconstitutional, and those domestic orders are often issued without due process, and sometimes even ex parte.

yeah. and some before Due Process...https://mdcourts.gov/district/ERPO


Edit: Add information

• OCTOBER 3, 2023
  LEGAL BRIEFS
  
  

  United States v. Zackey Rahimi​

  Cato’s brief argues that besides violating the Second Amendment under the text, history, and tradition framework articulated by the Supreme Court in Bruen, § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional because it fails to provide gun owners with adequate due process before dispossessing them of their firearms and stripping them of their fundamental right of armed self-defense.
  By Clark Neily

 

[jc1240]

They'll circle back with a radical leftist SCOTUS whose members won't even have read COTUS. It's just a matter of time. Based on last night's elections, I think Nov 2024 is going to be disastrous for the country and Liberty.

<Insert George Carlin bit about stupid people here>

 

[AliasNeo07]

I think they'll rule that it's constitutional and narrow Bruen slightly. They'd sort of have to if they were to rule that way.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Mark Smith thinks Rahimi will lose but the 2nd Amendment will win:

DOJ ON VERGE OF MAJOR SUPREME COURT 2A LOSS: Don't Believe Media Hype about Rahimi Case​

 

[Allen65]

I think they'll rule that it's constitutional and narrow Bruen slightly. They'd sort of have to if they were to rule that way.

They can rule pro-2A and anti-Rahimi at the same time by concentrating on the due process aspect of the law. Family courts hand out protective orders like candy with little due process, triggering a loss of 2A rights. The Court could say that's a no-no. But Rahimi specifically waived his due process rights and accepted the restraining order voluntarily, IIRC, which means the law can still make him prohibited.

If SCOTUS threads that needle, it helps us by declaring state legal processes cannot impinge on BoR enumerated rights without due process, while not giving the Antis ammunition for their propaganda because the repulsive Rahimi himself does not get a pass and remains prohibited.

If that was SCOTUS' intent that led to grant of certiorari, that was some pretty good 4D chess on Thomas' part because DoJ thought Rahimi was such an unsavory character, it would put SCOTUS in a bind where it would have to repudiate parts of Heller and Bruen to avoid giving Rahimi an appearance of having beat the system.